[tlhIngan Hol] Is {Sal} a verb of movement ?

[Will Martin]

I still don’t think we disagree as much as you’d like to believe.

I see that my primary function in your life is to give you someone to correct at all opportunities, and I’m okay with that, though I’m slightly disinclined to not respond when I’m being corrected for something I don’t have wrong.

Words represent everything we convey in language. The vocabulary and the grammar compliment each other toward the common goal of conveying meaning.

The abstract separation of language into syntax and semantics helps us better understand the mechanisms of conveying meaning.

“I swim in a river.” The syntax (the grammar) implies that the river is a location where the swimming happens. Grammatically, it’s a “locative”.

Meanwhile, if I say, “I swim in a kiddy pool,” or “I swim in an ocean” the difference in meaning in most contexts has less to do with the location than it does all the sensory associations of “river”, “kiddy pool”, and “ocean”. Swimming in a river is going to have bigger waves than the kiddy pool and smaller ones than the ocean. If it’s below the fall line, the wet stuff will be salty and rise and fall with the tides. Above the fall line, it will be fresh water and the current will always flow toward the ocean (or more accurately, toward the falls, which are between here and the ocean). The wet stuff will not be chlorinated or artificially temperature controlled, or indoors.

So, syntactically, “in a river” is a location, but semantically, in most contexts, it has more to do with the sensations one has at a river. Small waves. Current. Fish. Maybe stinging nettles. Sand or mud along the shore line. The actual location of the river may or may not be important, despite the grammatical marker (preposition).

“I follow the river.” Here, the river is the direct object. There is no syntactical marker or grammatical indicator that the location of the river is significant. Meanwhile, the nature of the verb “follow” suggests that the location and shape of the river is the important thing for the verb “follow”. It has very little to do with all that wet stuff. It’s a geographical feature; the stuff of maps. Maps are all about location. The grammatical, syntactic function of the river is to be a direct object; a thing with a bunch of features and qualities bundled up with it. Working with the verb “follow”, its most important feature is its location, even though there’s no preposition giving it a syntactic marker as a locative.

I’m not wrong in suggesting that the semantic needs for a locative of the verb {ghoS} are fed by its direct object, even as it lacks the syntactic marker {-Daq}. In {bIQtIq vIghoS}, there is no grammatical indicator that the river is a path-like location. That’s all part of the meaning of {bIQtIq}. It’s a very specific subset of all the meanings associated with {bIQtIq}. The verb {ghoS} needs this locative meaning to be fulfilled by its object. The semantic features of {ghoS} create this focus on this limited subset of a greater set of meanings {bIQtIq} can carry, and a different verb would similarly focus on some other subset of features associated with {bIQtIq}.

This is why we need to understand the specific relationship between any verb and its appropriate objects in order to fully understand the verb. This is why we don’t peel pistachios, even though it’s more nicely alliterative than shelling them.

Thank you for giving me another thing to think about more deeply than I would have without your contribution.

charghwI’ ‘utlh



> On Feb 12, 2019, at 12:04 PM, SuStel <sustel at trimboli.name> wrote:
> 
> On 2/12/2019 11:47 AM, Will Martin wrote:
>> I’m guessing we disagree less than you think we do. Likely, it would help anyone interested in understanding this that the object of these unusual verbs is a noun whose location is its important feature. This is, as you like to point out, a semantic issue, not a grammatical one.
> I don't think a semantic versus syntax argument is really the issue here.
> 
> 
> 
>> We understand that the object of {ghoS} and its ilk is a location. We don’t have to mark it grammatically with {-Daq}, and if we do mark it with {-Daq}, we potentially give the noun a role that is not the object of the verb.
> Not quite. We don't have to mark it grammatically with -Daq, and if we do mark it with -Daq we potentially confuse the reader or listener as to whether we're talking about an object or a noun in the pre-object position.
> 
> If I say DujDaq ghoStaH, I know whether I mean that the subject is approaching the ship or on the ship and approaching, but the meaning is ambiguous to anyone else. The role of DujDaq doesn't change; it's just ambiguous.
> 
> Such ambiguities happen all the time, though, and shouldn't cause us worry. Context will make the correct meaning clear. And often probability will play a role. It's possible to interpret DujDaq vIghoStaH as I am on the ship, approaching it (an elided 'oH it as object), but it's unlikely I'm going to elide the object in this way if the chance of misunderstanding is high. DujDaq 'oH vIghoStaH.
> 
> 
> -- 
> SuStel
> http://trimboli.name <http://trimboli.name/>_______________________________________________
> tlhIngan-Hol mailing list
> tlhIngan-Hol at lists.kli.org
> http://lists.kli.org/listinfo.cgi/tlhingan-hol-kli.org

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.kli.org/pipermail/tlhingan-hol-kli.org/attachments/20190212/c10dc670/attachment-0002.htm>