<html>
<head>
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=UTF-8">
</head>
<body text="#000000" bgcolor="#FFFFFF">
<div class="moz-cite-prefix">On 3/4/2019 1:33 PM, Will Martin wrote:<br>
</div>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:C214E96A-F94D-4E6D-8C91-D2445DB0F3BA@mac.com">
<div>
<blockquote type="cite" class="">
<div class="">On Mar 4, 2019, at 12:54 PM, SuStel <<a
href="mailto:sustel@trimboli.name" class=""
moz-do-not-send="true">sustel@trimboli.name</a>> wrote:</div>
<br class="Apple-interchange-newline">
<div class="">
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html;
charset=UTF-8" class="">
<div text="#000000" bgcolor="#FFFFFF" class="">
<div class="moz-cite-prefix">On 3/4/2019 8:27 AM, Will
Martin wrote:<br class="">
</div>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:BD23482A-D65C-44D0-B385-620FAF4CD181@mac.com"
class="">
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html;
charset=UTF-8" class="">
But when you look at canon, Okrand puts {-‘e’} on nouns
that are subjects and objects and are placed in the word
order accordingly. {nuqDaq ‘oH puchpa’’e’?} That’s not
the topic. That’s the subject.</blockquote>
<p class="">It certainly is the topic. <i class="">As for
the bathroom, where is it?</i> Okrand goes out of his
way to point out that <b class="">-'e'</b> in copulas
can be translated this way. <b class="">puchpa''e'</b>
is the topic of the sentence. It's also the subject, in
Okrand's terminology. I actually think <i class="">topic</i>
is a better term for it than <i class="">subject,</i>
because the topic in such a sentence isn't actually <i
class="">doing</i> any verb.</p>
</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
<div>The issue here is the word’s placement in the sentence. If
it’s not the subject, then why is it the last word in the
sentence? All the other words with Type 5 suffix come before
the verb. ALL the other words with Type 5 suffix ALWAYS appear
before the verb. Even {-Daq}. ALWAYS.</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
<p>What about <b>neH</b> <i>only, merely?</i> If it's an
adverbial, then why does it come after a verb or noun? All the
other adverbials come before the object of the verb. ALL the other
adverbials ALWAYS appear before the object of the verb. ALWAYS.</p>
<p>Same argument, same flaw. It just <i>doe</i><i>s,</i> because
Okrand says it does. Okrand says <b>neH</b> <i>merely, only</i>
always comes after the noun or verb it modifies, so it just does.
Okrand says the subject/topic of a copula always has an <b>-'e'</b>
on it, so it just does.</p>
<p>You want the pattern to be absolute. It isn't. Okrand throws in
exceptions, quirks, and flexibility all over the place, <i>specifically</i>
to make the language that much more realistic. You want absolute
regularity, go learn Lojban.<br>
</p>
<p><br>
</p>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:C214E96A-F94D-4E6D-8C91-D2445DB0F3BA@mac.com">
<div>
<div> Only subjects follow verbs, and yes, this “verb" is a
pronoun, but Okrand himself says it’s being used as a verb.
That’s why it can take certain verbal suffixes, like {-taH}.</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
If pronouns are acting like verbs, and subjects follow verbs, then
why does Okrand say that the pronoun is the subject? "In the above
examples, the subjects are pronouns." <b>(tlhIngan jIH, yaS SoH,
puqpu' chaH).</b> And when you add another noun, that noun becomes
the subject <b>(puqpu' chaH qama'pu''e').</b><br>
<p>You are drawing a conclusion about the reason verb suffixes can
be put on pronouns. I'm not convinced it is correct. I don't think
that it's simply a matter of "pronoun becomes verb, therefore acts
like verb." Pronouns can't take verb prefixes. Pronouns don't seem
to be able to take all verb suffixes.</p>
<p>I think the explanation of why pronouns can take verb suffixes
isn't "they're acting as verbs"; it's that the pronoun is forming
a link with the noun, or forming a link between two nouns, and the
verb suffix is used to describe the nature of that link. <b>HoD
ghaH</b> <i>He is</i><i> the captain</i> describes a link of
pure identity between him and the captain. <b>HoD ghaHbe'</b> <i>He
is not the captain</i> describes the negation of identity
between him and the captain. There is no "verbiness" here at all.
<b>HoD ghaHmo'</b> <i>because he is the captain </i>says that
his identity as captain is the cause of something. <b>HoD ghaH
Qugh'e'</b><i> Kruge is the captain</i> describes a link of pure
identity between Kruge and the captain. <b>HoD ghaHtaH Qugh'e'</b><i>
Kruge continues to be the captain</i> describes the ongoing
identity of Kruge as the captain. And so on.</p>
<p>It's certainly true that "to be" sentences aren't standard,
"basic" sentences. The requirement of the topic marker, the
apparently fluid nature of what is the subject, the fact that he
goes out of his way to point out that there is no verb "to be" but
that pronouns are playing that role, all these point to the
conclusion that it's not simply that pronoun -> verb.<br>
</p>
<br>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:C214E96A-F94D-4E6D-8C91-D2445DB0F3BA@mac.com">
<div>
<div>Also, it’s use in relative clauses is commonly on the
subject of the verb with {-bogh}. Again, this is the only Type
5 suffix ever applied to a subject. Please find a
counterexample. I await revelation.</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
<p>I don't need to find a counterexample. That Klingon does not have
any other type 5 suffixes is not because <b>-'e'</b> is weird;
it's because the meaning of <b>-'e'</b> is nicely compatible with
subjects and objects.<br>
</p>
<p><br>
</p>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:C214E96A-F94D-4E6D-8C91-D2445DB0F3BA@mac.com">
<div><br class="">
<blockquote type="cite" class="">
<div class="">
<div text="#000000" bgcolor="#FFFFFF" class="">
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:BD23482A-D65C-44D0-B385-620FAF4CD181@mac.com"
class=""> {De’’e’ vItlhapnISpu’.} While the placement
COULD be explained as topic, the verb prefix {vI-} makes
it obvious that this is the object of the verb. His
translation, “I needed to get the INFORMATION,” makes it
clear that this is emphatic, not topic.</blockquote>
<p class="">I agree that this is emphasis. However, the
prefix does not exclude a possible topic reading: <i
class="">As for the information, I needed to get it.</i>
It's got an elided pronoun: <b class="">De''e' 'oH
vItlhapnISpu'.</b></p>
<p class="">Between this sort of equivalence, and Okrand's
mixing up of the concepts of topic and focus, I'm not
sure how important the distinction is in Klingon. Being
a topic may automatically bring focus.</p>
</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
<div>Many years ago, I thought you were wrong to suggest that
Okrand’s use of {-‘e’} was not to mark the topic, as he
stated, but actually to note “emphasis”, in your earlier
arguments or “focus” in your later arguments, but despite my
stubborn determination to accept Okrand’s DESCRIPTION instead
of his examples, you argued well, and over time, I came to
agree with you.</div>
<div><br class="">
</div>
<div>I’ll confess, it’s a little weird to hear you arguing
against a point that you successfully impressed me with in the
past. I do openly apologize for my earlier stubbornness. I
think I was wrong. I think you were right.</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
<p>Okrand has not ever unambiguously used <b>-'e'</b> to refer to a
topic in the subject or object position. My prior arguments stand.
I'm simply saying that there IS an area of ambiguity here. It is
ambiguous whether a "migrated" object pronoun remains an object or
become a non-object topic. It is ambiguous whether <b>-'e'</b>
meanings of topic, emphasis, and/or focus are strictly separate.
It is not ambiguous that <b>-'e'</b> has more than one of those
meanings.</p>
<p>For instance, if I say <b>HoD leghpu'bogh puq'e' vISov,</b> can
you be absolutely sure that <b>-'e'</b> is simply a relative
clause disambiguator (focus)? If I wanted to emphasize <b>puq,</b>
could I not do so? If I wanted to ensure that <b>puq</b> was the
topic of the sentence, could I not do that?</p>
<p><i>I know the child who saw the captain.</i> (focus of relative
clause)<br>
<i>I know the CHILD (not someone else) who saw the captain.</i>
(emphasis)<br>
<i>As for the child, I know the one who saw the captain. </i>(topic)<br>
<i></i></p>
<p>I'm not guaranteeing that all of these are possible
interpretations. I'm simply saying that there is ambiguity. I
don't think <b>-'e'</b> lives in the rigid box you're putting it
in.<br>
</p>
<p><br>
</p>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:C214E96A-F94D-4E6D-8C91-D2445DB0F3BA@mac.com">
<div>
<div>The question remains as to whether or not a noun can be
marked with {-‘e’} at the beginning of a sentence, like other
Type 5 suffixed nouns, functioning as topic, but not subject
or object. I know that the description suggests this would be
the case, but I’m not sure we actually have any canon
examples. Do you know of any?</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
<p>No, we have never had an unambiguous case of <b>-'e'</b> acting
as a topic on the subject of a basic sentence.<br>
</p>
<p><br>
</p>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:C214E96A-F94D-4E6D-8C91-D2445DB0F3BA@mac.com">
<div>
<div>If you interpret that last word of sentence in a “to-be”
use of a pronoun-as-verb to be subject, then all examples of
{-‘e’} given that I can recall involve it being applied to
subjects or objects. Despite the opportunity to use it to mark
the topic as a non-subject, non-object at the beginning of a
sentence implied by the description,</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
<p>NONONO.<b> </b>Just being a topic doesn't automatically make it
a non-subject non-object. The point is that it might be possible
for a subject or object to also be a topic. We see topic-subjects
all the time in copulas, but we haven't seen them in basic
sentences. We've seen emphasis- and focus-subjects on basic
sentences, and even on a copula in the Morskan dialect. We may
have seen topic-objects on "migrated" objects, but this is
unclear.<br>
</p>
<p><br>
</p>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:C214E96A-F94D-4E6D-8C91-D2445DB0F3BA@mac.com">
<div><br class="">
<blockquote type="cite" class="">
<div text="#000000" bgcolor="#FFFFFF" class="">
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:BD23482A-D65C-44D0-B385-620FAF4CD181@mac.com"
class="">
<div class="">As an example, when a relative clause has
both subject and object, we optionally have the use of
{-‘e’} to mark the head noun:</div>
<div class=""><br class="">
</div>
<div class="">puq qIppu’bogh yaS vIngu’.</div>
<div class=""><br class="">
</div>
<div class="">This could mean either “I identified the
officer who hit the child,” or “I identified the child
who was hit by the officer.” If I want to make sure you
understand, I could say, {puq qIppu’bogh yaS’e’ vIngu’.}</div>
<div class=""><br class="">
</div>
<div class="">Note that Okrand often does not use this
tool in canon, leaving context to suggest whether the
subject or object of the relative clause is the head
noun. To me, that suggests that this use is more of an
emphatic than topic marker. </div>
</blockquote>
<p class="">The disambiguating <b class="">-'e'</b> is
strictly focus, not topic.</p>
</div>
</blockquote>
I likely know less linguistic jargon than you do. That’s not a
dig. Jargon is useful, and if I want to talk with linguists, I
ought to learn more of it.</div>
</blockquote>
<p><i>Topic:</i> what the sentence is about.<br>
<i>Emphasis:</i> making the noun more important, exclusive.<br>
<i>Focus:</i> making the noun the center of attention.</p>
<p>The three things have some overlap, which is how I think <b>-'e'</b>
works.<br>
</p>
<p><br>
</p>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:C214E96A-F94D-4E6D-8C91-D2445DB0F3BA@mac.com">
<div>But my point was not that you need a Type 5 to appear before
the object. My point is that the normal position for nouns with
Type 5 is before the object, and {-‘e’} is exceptional to that
norm. Even {-Daq}, which doesn’t precede the object because it
applies to the object never applies to a word following the verb
it’s noun is grammatically linked to.<br class="">
</div>
</blockquote>
<p><b>-'e'</b> is exceptional in that it appears in more positions
than other type 5 nouns, yes. <b>-mo'</b> as a noun suffix is
exceptional because it appears so infrequently. <i>Exceptional</i>
doesn't mean <i>breaks the rules.</i> <b>-'e'</b> simply has
more uses than other type 5 suffixes. Its meaning is broader.<br>
</p>
<p><br>
</p>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:C214E96A-F94D-4E6D-8C91-D2445DB0F3BA@mac.com">
<div><br class="">
<blockquote type="cite" class="">
<div text="#000000" bgcolor="#FFFFFF" class="">
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:BD23482A-D65C-44D0-B385-620FAF4CD181@mac.com"
class="">
<div class="">There are really only two reasons for
calling this a Type 5 suffix:</div>
<div class=""><br class="">
</div>
<div class="">1. You can’t use it with other Type 5
suffixes.</div>
<div class=""><br class="">
</div>
<div class="">2. It is always the last suffix on the noun.</div>
</blockquote>
<p class="">3. It describes a syntactic role for nouns.</p>
<p class="">4. It migrates to the ends of verbs modifying
nouns.</p>
</div>
</blockquote>
<div>Good. Well done. You are right, though #3 is the murky one.
Likely, the murkiness is over the apparent lack of focus (so
to speak) over the difference between topic and focus.</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
<p><b>-'e'</b> is explained in the section called "Type 5: Syntactic
markers."<br>
</p>
<p><br>
</p>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:C214E96A-F94D-4E6D-8C91-D2445DB0F3BA@mac.com">
<div><br class="">
<blockquote type="cite" class="">
<div text="#000000" bgcolor="#FFFFFF" class="">
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:BD23482A-D65C-44D0-B385-620FAF4CD181@mac.com"
class="">
<div class="">In any case, this is without question the
least well described suffix in TKD.<br class="">
</div>
</blockquote>
<p class=""><b class="">-ghach</b> is the least-well
described suffix in TKD. It has subsequently been better
described. <b class="">-meH</b> is also a contender for
problematical understanding.<br class="">
</p>
</div>
</blockquote>
I’d still put {-‘e’} high on the list, simply because of the
lack of examples of it being used on nouns that are the topic of
a sentence, but not subject or object, and to better explain why
it is so different from other Type 5 suffixes in terms of word
order. The example you gave of the moved adverbial would be
insightful were it to be directly addressed with the word order
explained to provide a better guideline for us, as we construct
our own Klingon sentences.</div>
</blockquote>
<p>You need to get past "word order" as the end-all of your
grammatical map. Type 5 suffixes apply syntactic meaning to nouns
regardless of word order. <b>DujDaq</b> means <i>in/at/on/by the
ship</i> no matter where it appears in the sentence. The fact
that it probably can't appear as subject is a side-effect of what
verbs mean, not that <b>-Daq</b> has a special place in the
sentence.<br>
</p>
<p><br>
</p>
<pre class="moz-signature" cols="72">--
SuStel
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="http://trimboli.name">http://trimboli.name</a></pre>
</body>
</html>