[Tlhingan-hol] Type 5 on first noun

Fri Feb 12 20:11:42 PST 2016

I just want to be clear that I do not believe that I am “OK with the locative being applied to a noun in the absence of a verb.”

In Klingon, it’s all about the verb.

A lone verb is not a sentence fragment, unless it ends in {-taHvIS} or a Type 9 suffix to make it a dependent clause. That verb is a sentence, grammatically complete.

A lone noun is ALWAYS a sentence fragment. It’s role in the sentence that would make it whole is either defined by a Type 5 noun suffix, or it is assumed to be a subject or object, since these are the only roles that a noun can have in a complete sentence: Subject, Object, or something defined by Type 5 suffix.

Even sentence fragments obey grammar. In English, the fragment “without you” is meaningful and grammatical, though it is not a sentence. “you without” is not meaningful or grammatical. Even though it’s not a whole sentence, “without you" still follows the rules of grammar that it would follow if it were part of a complete sentence.

A noun phrase stated as a sentence fragment follows grammatical rules just like a noun does. “The man behind the curtain” is grammatical and meaningful, as is “the man”, though neither are sentences. {HoD be’nI’} is a meaningful sentence fragment made out of a genitive noun-noun construction; a noun phrase. Since neither noun has a Type 9 suffix, this noun phrase could serve as a subject or object in a complete sentence. We know that the sister is the subject or object of whatever that sentence might be. We know that the captain is a noun used to describe or identify the sister, and would not directly participate in being subject or object of the verb.

{DujDaq} is a meaningful sentence fragment. It’s the location that something happens. It is grammatical.

{DujDaq HoD be’nI’} is a grammatical, meaningful sentence fragment. {DujDaq} is not directly modifying {HoD be’nI’}. In Klingon, the grammar is all about the verbs. We know that {DujDaq} is where something happens, and we know that {HoD be’nI’} is either doing this action or having this action done to her. We don’t know what the action is, but we are grammatically required to believe that the action is the thing that is located by {DujDaq}. The sister is contained within the location of the action as the action occurs. So, indirectly, the ship reveals the location of the sister, but it is not the case that the ship is the location of the sister. The ship is the location of the container that includes the sister.

I know, it sounds weird, but that part was pretty clear when Okrand talked about how “I shot an elephant in my pajamas. How the elephant got into my pajamas, I’ll never know,” is funny in Klingon as in English because the same ambiguity exists. The reason that you can’t tell whether the shooter or the elephant is in the pajamas in “I shot an elephant in my pajamas” is that “in my pajamas” does not locate either the shooter or the elephant. It locates the action of shooting.

That action of shooting occurs across the entire area of the action, which includes both the elephant and the shooter.

Consider the following:

DujDaq HoDvaD taj vInob.

Is the ship the location of the speaker, the captain, or the knife?

The action of giving the knife includes the location of all three nouns. The ship is not the location of any of the nouns. It’s the location of the giving.

So, {DujDaq HoDvaD taj} is a valid, meaningful, grammatically correct sentence fragment. It is not a single noun phrase. {DujDaq} does not “modify” anything else in the sentence fragment. It modifies the unspoken verb. {HoDvaD} does not modify anything else in the sentence fragment. It modifies the unspoken verb. {taj} does not modify anything else in the sentence fragment. It modifies the unspoken verb.

Being a fragment, it is not complete. Still, it participates in Klingon grammar, which requires a verb as a role to interact with for the rest of the grammar, just as a living tree limb requires a tree trunk and a tree root. You can sit on a tree limb with no conscious awareness of the trunk or the roots or their shape or mass or color, but that doesn’t suggest their absence in reference to the structure of the whole tree. Grammar in this analogy is the structure of trees.

The photograph of a front porch is a depiction of a house fragment. Even though the picture does not include the foundation the porch relies upon, it is still visually recognizable as a porch. The porch has no meaning without the implication of a foundation you can’t see. You don’t know if it’s a post foundation or a cinderblock foundation or a brick foundation or a stone foundation, but you know that a foundation is there, because a porch can’t bear it’s own weight without one. That’s what a Klingon sentence fragment without a verb is like. You don’t have to know what the verb is to understand the grammatical relationship between the words in the sentence fragment and the unstated verb.

So, to be clear, I do not believe that N-5 N as a sentence fragment implies that N-5 modifies N. N-5 modifies an unstated verb, and N modifies the same unstated verb, since the pair of words grammatically forms a fragment of a single sentence, though they do not form a single noun phrase. If they didn’t modify the same unstated verb, then they wouldn’t be a grammatical sentence fragment.

lojmIt tI’wI’ nuv ‘utlh
Door Repair Guy, Retired Honorably

> On Feb 11, 2016, at 10:10 PM, David Holt <kenjutsuka at live.com> wrote:
> 
> jatlh bI'reng:
> 
> > SuStel is arguing that MO is repeatedly making not just a
> > grammatical error, but a major grammatical error--one that
> > renders the phrase meaningless--and he's backing that up with a
> > rule that I think is worded imprecisely. I admit my interpretation of
> > the rule doesn't work, but I think SuStel is far more certain about
> > his argument than he should be, given how the rule is worded.
> 
> It has been a long time now (in terms of this discussion) since anyone has added anything new.  I just hear SuStel repeating his stance that any sort of genitive relationship means a rule has been broken.  He's very adamant about that.  And I hear others (including myself) saying that they are OK with the locative being applied to a noun in the absence of a verb.  We are very adamant about that.  I think there are no further objective points to be made.  All we can do is try to impress on each other the earnestness of our subjective opinions.
> 
> > Like I said, what we're really debating isn't the just acceptability of
> > N1-5 N2, but our methodology for making sense of TKD. MO made
> > a rule that he regularly breaks, and most of us are okay with it. That
> > makes me wonder if SuStel's literalist approach makes sense here.
> 
> I think, rather, that most of us feel this phrase is not breaking any rules because a structure exists that it fits into without breaking any of the rules.  We are not okay with Dr. Okrand breaking the rules, but in this case some of us see a locative as being able to modify a noun in the absence of a verb even though that looks genitive and so might otherwise be handled as a noun-noun construction (where it would be breaking the rules).
> 
> > All I'm saying is that if we're adamant about following a rule that
> > MO keeps breaking, maybe we should rethink how strict that rule
> > is. But I admit my proposed solution does not work.
> 
> Perhaps we have approached that sort of situation that way in the past, but I believe it is not necessary this time.  I do not believe he is breaking a rule about noun-noun constructions, but rather stretching the rule for how locatives apply.
> 
> Jeremy
> _______________________________________________
> Tlhingan-hol mailing list
> Tlhingan-hol at kli.org <mailto:Tlhingan-hol at kli.org>
> http://mail.kli.org/mailman/listinfo/tlhingan-hol <http://mail.kli.org/mailman/listinfo/tlhingan-hol>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mail.kli.org/pipermail/tlhingan-hol/attachments/20160212/ae938195/attachment-0001.html>