[Tlhingan-hol] Type 5 on first noun

[De'vID]

De'vID:
>> Also, {'uQ'a' QamchIyDaq} is very clearly wrong, for the meaning he
>> wanted to express. It means "at the feast's Qam-Chee".

SuStel:
> You insist that {QamchIyDaq 'uQ'a'} doesn't literally mean "at-Qamchee's
> feast," yet you say {'uQ'a' QamchIyDaq} must mean "at the feast's Qamchee"?
> Why isn't MY ordering just two unrelated nouns strung together?

Because the two situations aren't alike?

You're treating Klingon grammar like the rules of a computer program,
where all violations are equal. In natural language processing, that
is, in how humans actually process natural languages, this isn't so.

A grammar specifies: things which are explicitly allowed (with
possible exceptions), and things which are explicitly forbidden (with
possible exceptions). Unless it's extremely detailed (which TKD is
not), this leaves a grey area where it's not been made explicit
whether something is legal or not.

N1-5 N2 is explicitly illegal. N1 N2-5 is explicitly legal. Ergo,
given {QamchIyDaq 'uQ'a'}, a Klingon speaker approaching it like a
natural language (rather than like a computer program) will balk at
interpreting it as N1-5 N2. But given {'uQ'a' QamchIyDaq}, there is no
problem interpreting it as N1 N2-5.

I can't speak for all Klingon speakers, but it seems reasonable that a
person reading Klingon like a natural language approaches it by
stripping off all the "things that go in front" (including {-Daq}'d
nouns), followed by looking for an object, then a verb, then a
subject, because that's the form of a Klingon sentence. The natural
(i.e., natural language approach) reading of {QamchIyDaq 'uQ'a'}
therefore results in a locative, followed by a bare noun. This is not
a legal Klingon sentence, because a verb is missing. On the other
hand, we've only seen this happen in a label and a chapter title,
things which plausibly don't require full sentences. This falls into a
grey area. Intuitively, when natural language speakers are presented
with a construct that they're told is legal (canon), they try to
rationalise it in a way that makes it "as legal as possible". An
interpretation that falls into a grey area (a verb is missing in a
context that doesn't require a full sentence) is therefore
(psychologically) preferable over one that violates an explicit rule.
Yes, this is a bias, but it's a natural language bias, and we should
treat Klingon like a natural language.

Again, this isn't the only possible way to approach this, but several
others have said that that's how they've done it, and I think I have a
reasonable explanation of why most Klingon speakers would go about it
this way. You insist that your noun-noun interpretation must take
precedence over this, but this is effectively insisting that other
Klingon speakers treat Klingon like a computer program instead of
using their natural language instincts. It's fine if you want to do
this, but why should anyone else?

I think, to clarify the situation, we should separate out two issues here.
1. Did Okrand intend to form a noun-noun construct? We agree that
there is no way to know. Any argument about this is circular.
2. Playing the game where Klingon is a real alien language which we
are studying, if we are told that {telDaq wovmoHwI'mey} can be a label
on an engineering diagram and {QamchIyDaq 'uQ'a'} can be a chapter
title, how do we make sense of it? Approaching it like a natural
language results in locative followed by noun. (I can't prove that
this is how a native Klingon speaker would understand it, but it's at
least how several human speakers of Klingon have said they understand
it, and it is consistent with what we know about natural language
processing.)

SuStel:
> Just because
> a noun-noun is formed by putting two nouns next to each other, it doesn't
> follow that two nouns next to each other form a noun-noun. I seem to
> remember someone lecturing me on that.

At this point, I don't know if you're being obstinate just to be
obstinate. Indeed, what you wrote is true. There may very well be
contexts in which {'uQ'a' QamchIyDaq} don't form a noun-noun
construction. Say, {qaSDI' 'uQ'a' QamchIyDaq Suvpu'bogh SuvwI' yIHoH}
"kill the warrior who fought at Qam-Chee when the feast happens".

But I can safely venture that any Klingon speaker reading {'uQ'a'
QamchIyDaq} on its own, as a chapter title, will interpret it as the
noun-noun construction "at the feast's Qam-Chee". I can also safely
state that not all Klingon speakers reading {QamchIyDaq 'uQ'a'} on its
own, as a chapter title, will interpret it as a noun-noun
construction, even though they will all understand it as effectively
conveying the meaning "the feast at Qam-Chee".

SuStel:
> What if I want to insist that {'uQ'a'
> QamchIyDaq} means "the feast; at Qam-chee" as two unrelated nouns in a
> label, which doesn't have to follow any grammatical relationship?

You're free to do so.

SuStel:
> That's a rhetorical question, meant to point out the bias inherent in your
> statement. You are invoking special hypothetical rules when you're fishing
> for an explanation, but not when such a rule wouldn't support your argument.

It's a rhetorical question comparing two things that aren't alike.
There are two plausible explanations for something, one of which falls
into a grey area, and one of which is explicitly illegal. People
naturally prefer the less illegal explanation. You call it bias. I
call it not being a robot.

SuStel:
> No, it's not, but I didn't start by saying it WAS the only hypothesis. I
> started by giving MY hypothesis, as well as my assessment of how the
> translation came about, and others objected to it based on the circular
> logic of "it can't be an illegal noun-noun because that that -Daq makes a
> noun-noun illegal."

Again, I think we should separate out the question of what Okrand
intended (nobody knows) from how a Klingon would interpret the
sentence. I think most responses to you have been from the point of
view of the second, when what you really asked was the first, which
has led to a lot of misunderstanding.

SuStel:
> My ire has been raised partly by having my arguments
> misrepresented as something completely different, partly by being compared
> to Fox News, but mostly because I'm being argued against with circular
> logic.

I don't think I've misrepresented your arguments. As for circular
logic, insisting that it's a noun-noun construction is equally
circular. The difference is that one circular argument leads to an
explicit violation of rules, and the other leads to a grey area.

-- 
De'vID