[tlhIngan Hol] Clarification on SIch

[De'vID]

On Wed, 10 Apr 2019 at 18:47, Ed Bailey <bellerophon.modeler at gmail.com>
wrote:

> On Wed, Apr 10, 2019 at 11:44 AM Felix Malmenbeck <felixm at kth.se> wrote:
>
> We have seen some Klingon words that show a similar type of
>> ambitransitive alternation (*ghom*, *choH*, *mev*), and I'm sure others
>> exist, but from an in-universe perspective, there's not much reason to
>> infer that a Klingon verb is an alternating ambitransitive based on whether
>> or not its English gloss is.
>>
>
> It seems this behavior is seen in Klingon verbs like *meQ*, where *-moH*
> is sometimes dropped. Perhaps this happens due to your out-of-universe
> explanation, but an in-universe explanation would be the desire for
> brevity, combined with pragmatics.
>

I don't believe that this is the case. But even if it were, {SIch} doesn't
fit the pattern: all of the listed ambitransitive verbs have the same
valency. The verb {V} doesn't take an object, and {V x} means "x verbs"
while {x V[moH] y} means "y verbs x". {z SIch x} means "x reaches z".
There's no justification why {z-vaD/-Daq y SIch x} would suddenly mean "x
reaches y (i.e., x uses y to reach) into z".

Also, there are maybe a dozen ambitransitive verbs out of over a thousand
root verbs. Without any reason to believe a verb is ambitransitive, the
prior probability is that it isn't. Furthermore, we do have data: Okrand
gave us two examples of its usage. If he had intended it to be
ambitransitive, he would've given an example where it's used that way.


> *chabHom bal qoDDaq ghopwIj vISIchmoH* *I make my hand reach into the
> cookie jar*, or maybe better *ghopwIjvaD chabHom bal qoD vISIchmoH* would
> be a safe construction, assuming the body part or implement can be the
> subject of *SIch*,
>
> On Wed, Apr 10, 2019 at 12:01 PM De'vID <de.vid.jonpin at gmail.com> wrote:
>
>>
>>
>> On Wed, 10 Apr 2019 at 16:37, Ed Bailey <bellerophon.modeler at gmail.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> Here are two more things about SIch I'd like clarified.
>>> Can it be used with the body part or implement as its object? *?chabHom
>>> bal qoD[Daq] ghopwIj vISIch* *I reach my hand into the cookie jar*.
>>>
>>
>> Did someone cut off your hand and put it into a cookie jar, and are you
>> retrieving it (presumably with your other hand)? I read this as "In the
>> cookie jar, I reach my hand."
>>
>
> I'd cite this as an example of the deliberate disuse of pragmatics:
> resolving ambiguity by following a strict usage rule rather than choosing
> the most likely possibility as the speaker's intent.
>

What ambiguity? As I understand it, the sentence isn't ambiguous: it
unambiguously means how I read it.

Also, the fact that a speaker most likely means something doesn't imply
that what they said is what they mean. If you had said to me, "A wall I
drove into my car", I'd infer that you probably drove your car into the
wall. That doesn't make that sentence have that meaning, or grammatical.

If you had said that Klingon sentence to me, yeah, I'd probably guess that
you meant you put your hand into the cookie jar, but I'd also think you
misspoke.

-- 
De'vID
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.kli.org/pipermail/tlhingan-hol-kli.org/attachments/20190410/b7ddaa4e/attachment-0003.htm>