<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 8:27 AM, Will Martin wrote:<br>
</div>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:BD23482A-D65C-44D0-B385-620FAF4CD181@mac.com">
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=UTF-8">
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>It certainly is the topic. <i>As for the bathroom, where is it?</i>
Okrand goes out of his way to point out that <b>-'e'</b> in
copulas can be translated this way. <b>puchpa''e'</b> is the
topic of the sentence. It's also the subject, in Okrand's
terminology. I actually think <i>topic</i> is a better term for
it than <i>subject,</i> because the topic in such a sentence
isn't actually <i>doing</i> any verb.<br>
</p>
<p><br>
</p>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:BD23482A-D65C-44D0-B385-620FAF4CD181@mac.com"> {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>I agree that this is emphasis. However, the prefix does not
exclude a possible topic reading: <i>As for the information, I
needed to get it.</i> It's got an elided pronoun: <b>De''e' 'oH
vItlhapnISpu'.</b></p>
<p>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.<br>
</p>
<p><br>
</p>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:BD23482A-D65C-44D0-B385-620FAF4CD181@mac.com">In
Klingon, were we to see a noun at the beginning of a sentence that
has {-‘e’} on it and has no other grammatical explanation for its
placement, I suggest that would indicate topic, while adding
{-‘e’} to a noun that is placed as subject or object of a clause
is acting as emphasis instead of topic.</blockquote>
<p>A noun with <b>-'e' </b>at the beginning that isn't an object
must be a topic. A noun with <b>-'e'</b> somewhere else might or
might not be topic.</p>
<p>Take, for instance, <b>HaqwI''e' DaH yISam</b><i> Find the
SURGEON now!</i> On the one hand, it seems to be describing
emphasis. On the other hand, it deliberately puts what was the
object of the sentence <b>(DaH HaqwI' yISam)</b> and puts it in
front of the adverbial where it can't possibly be interpreted as
an object, but it <i>can</i> be interpreted as a topic.</p>
<p>So is it just a migrated object that's just emphasized? Has it
gone into that "header" space of syntactic nouns and adverbials
where it's acting like a topic? <i>As for the surgeon, find him
now!</i> is a valid translation of the sentence, and Okrand does
say that the object has been topicalized. I don't think you can
deliver any pronouncements here; the waters are too murky.<br>
</p>
<p><br>
</p>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:BD23482A-D65C-44D0-B385-620FAF4CD181@mac.com">
<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>The disambiguating <b>-'e'</b> is strictly focus, not topic.<br>
</p>
<p><br>
</p>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:BD23482A-D65C-44D0-B385-620FAF4CD181@mac.com">
<div class="">Also, there is no grammatical explanation for how a
noun could have a Type 5 suffix and yet its position in the
sentence is not dictated by the rule that nouns with Type 5
suffix must appear before the object of the verb to which it
applies. Obviously, there’s something going on here that Okrand
has not described well.</div>
</blockquote>
<p>The rule does not say that a noun with a type 5 suffix must
appear before the object. It says that nouns that appear before
the object usually have type 5 suffixes. We have lots of examples
of nouns appearing before the object that aren't marked with any
suffix: they're all time expressions (e.g., <b>DaHjaj nom Soppu'</b><i>
Today they ate quickly</i>).<br>
</p>
<p><br>
</p>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:BD23482A-D65C-44D0-B385-620FAF4CD181@mac.com">
<div class="">For myself, I would not be surprised if there were
two different {-‘e’} suffixes. One is the one Okrand describes
in the grammar section of TKD and the other is the one he uses
in perhaps all of his canon examples. This second one is not a
true Type 5 suffix because the addition of this suffix has no
effect on word placement.</div>
</blockquote>
<p>I think the difference between topic and focus or emphasis in
Klingon is simply not very sharp, and the ideas are related. It is
always a true type 5 suffix, though, because there is no
prohibition against putting type 5 suffixes on subjects or
objects. You simply need a verb whose arguments support such a
notion. There is no difficulty in understanding a verb whose
subject or object include the syntactic notion of emphasis or
topic.<br>
</p>
<p><br>
</p>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:BD23482A-D65C-44D0-B385-620FAF4CD181@mac.com">
<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>3. It describes a syntactic role for nouns.</p>
<p>4. It migrates to the ends of verbs modifying nouns.<br>
</p>
<p><br>
</p>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:BD23482A-D65C-44D0-B385-620FAF4CD181@mac.com">
<div class="">So, the real question is which of the following is
true:</div>
<div class=""><br class="">
</div>
<div class="">1. There are two different noun suffixes, one of
which is a true Type 5 suffix, affecting the word placement of
the noun in the sentence, marking the topic of the sentence, and
the other which is the noun equivalent of a verbal “rover”
suffix (not that the suffix can rove among noun suffixes, but
that the noun to which the suffix is applied can rove to
whatever position in the sentence is appropriate, different than
any other Type 5 suffix), indicating emphasis and not topic.</div>
<div class=""><br class="">
</div>
<div class="">2. The grammatical description of {-‘e’} is
fundamentally flawed because it fails to explicitly describe
that {-‘e’} never affects word placement in the sentence as all
other Type 5 noun suffixes do, and {-‘e’} acts ONLY as emphatic
and NEVER as topic. Okrand is apparently confused about the
grammatical difference between topic and emphatic, or he oddly
decided that while he understands the difference, his target
audience doesn’t understand the difference, and perhaps we would
understand the word “topic” while we would be confused by the
term “emphatic”.</div>
</blockquote>
<p>3. <b>-'e'</b> works pretty much like every other syntactic noun
suffix, applying a syntactic role to its noun. That role can be
interpreted as emphasis, focus, or topic, depending on how it's
used. The fact that it's a required role in an unusual position in
the copula construction doesn't change its nature; that's a quirk
of copulas, not of <b>-'e'.</b></p>
<p>I think you're trying to force Klingon to conform to patterns
you've already decided on, but it's not that rigid. Dare I say
that Klingon is not a code?<br>
</p>
<p><br>
</p>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:BD23482A-D65C-44D0-B385-620FAF4CD181@mac.com">
<div class="">In any case, this is without question the least well
described suffix in TKD.<br>
</div>
</blockquote>
<p><b>-ghach</b> is the least-well described suffix in TKD. It has
subsequently been better described. <b>-meH</b> is also a
contender for problematical understanding.<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>