On Wed, 10 Apr 2019 at 18:47, Ed Bailey <bellerophon.modeler@gmail.com> wrote:
On Wed, Apr 10, 2019 at 11:44 AM Felix Malmenbeck <felixm@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@gmail.com> wrote:
On Wed, 10 Apr 2019 at 16:37, Ed Bailey <bellerophon.modeler@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