Suffix position: semantically significant?
Obviously, position is semantically significant for rovers, but does it have any semantic significance for fixed-position verb suffixes? I wanted to express “I obviously need to be able to speak Federation Standard”, which I initially composed as {DIvI' Hol vIjatlhlaHnISba'}; however, after checking my verb suffix types, realized that this was ungrammatical. However, the grammatically correct {DIvI' Hol vIjatlhnISlaHba'} seems like it should mean something else to me: “I obviously can need to speak Federation Standard.” I ended up writing it as {DIvI' Hol vIghojnISba'} instead, but I’m still curious about this. My intuition tells me that the ordering of the verb suffixes *is* semantically significant, and that in order to say something like what I originally intended, a construction like {DIvI' Hol jatlhmeH laH vIghajnISba'} (or more pointedly, {vISuqnISba'}). I sort of envision {vIjatlhnISlaHba'} as being parsed like ((((vI-(jatlh))-nIS)-laH)-ba'), with each affix modifying the meaning of the unit it is directly attached to, rather than just having all the affixes considered together within the context in which they appear for meaning.
Am 07.06.2018 um 15:25 schrieb Daniel Dadap:
My intuition tells me [...]
That's your Terran English speaking intuition. :-) I understand your point. It's the classic "I must open the door" problem, *vI-poSmoH-nIS. A short answer is simply: That's the way Klingon works, get used to it. longer answer: Indeed this sometimes causes ambiguous situations, and if you really want to avoid ambiguity, you must either rephrase it, or add suffixes like -qu' to mark the important suffix. But there's no way to change the system of the suffixes order. And after a while you will even get used to the correct order. Besides, a suffix does not only modify its preceding suffixes or word parts, it modifies the entire thing. It really is hard sometimes, and you cannot do wordplays you may do in English by switching words. -- Lieven L. Litaer aka the "Klingon Teacher from Germany" http://www.klingonisch.de http://www.klingonwiki.net/En/StarTrekDiscovery
On Jun 7, 2018, at 08:42, Lieven L. Litaer <levinius@gmx.de> wrote:
Am 07.06.2018 um 15:25 schrieb Daniel Dadap: My intuition tells me [...]
That's your Terran English speaking intuition. :-)
Indeed. I learned early on not to trust my intuitions, hence why I asked. :)
I understand your point. It's the classic "I must open the door" problem, *vI-poSmoH-nIS.
A short answer is simply: That's the way Klingon works, get used to it.
longer answer: Indeed this sometimes causes ambiguous situations, and if you really want to avoid ambiguity, you must either rephrase it, or add suffixes like -qu' to mark the important suffix. But there's no way to change the system of the suffixes order. And after a while you will even get used to the correct order.
Besides, a suffix does not only modify its preceding suffixes or word parts, it modifies the entire thing. It really is hard sometimes, and you cannot do wordplays you may do in English by switching words.
Okay, thanks. Yeah, I think I am starting to get used to the order, since after I wrote *{vIjatlhlaHnISba'}, I immediately got the feeling that it wasn’t quite right. Now I just need to get used to the order not meaning what I feel like it means. :)
-- Lieven L. Litaer aka the "Klingon Teacher from Germany" http://www.klingonisch.de http://www.klingonwiki.net/En/StarTrekDiscovery _______________________________________________ tlhIngan-Hol mailing list tlhIngan-Hol@lists.kli.org http://lists.kli.org/listinfo.cgi/tlhingan-hol-kli.org
Lieven L. Litaer:
Indeed this sometimes causes ambiguous situations, and if you really want to avoid ambiguity, you must either rephrase it, or add suffixes like {-qu'} to mark the important suffix. But there's no way to change the system of the suffixes order. And after a while you will even get used to the correct order.
Besides, a suffix does not only modify its preceding suffixes or word parts, it modifies the entire thing. It really is hard sometimes, and you cannot do wordplays you may do in English by switching words.
(TKD 175): This suffix [i.e. {-ba'}] is used when the speaker thinks that his or her assertion should be obvious to the listener. Nevertheless, there is still room for doubt; the suffix does not imply as strong a conviction as {-bej} certainly. Note that Okrand said that the "assertion should be obvious to the listener", not the previous suffix or part of speech. As Lieven said, the numbered suffixes modify the entire utterance. It's one of Okrand's "just because" rules which we must accept. Only Rover suffixes can be freely moved around. (Indeed, that's why they are called rovers.) Most of our evidence comes from written texts but I imagine that in speech one could draw attention to the important suffix, if needed, by using extra stress, a slight pause, a gesture, etc. Are there agglutinative languages where suffixes must be used in a specific order like Klingon? If so, how do speakers of those languages emphasize one element? Or do they? Perhaps they're so used to listening "holistically" to the utterance that they aren't consciously aware of the order -- except when someone (a foreigner for example) gets it wrong, and then it's perceived as an ignorant mistake and not personal style. --Voragh
" Are there agglutinative languages where suffixes must be used in a specific order like Klingon?" I'm not an expert but my sense is that this is generally the case with most agglutinative languages. 'arHa -- Socialist Alternative <http://www.socialistalternative.org/> Klingon Language Institute <http://www.kli.org/> On Thu, Jun 7, 2018 at 9:45 AM, Steven Boozer <sboozer@uchicago.edu> wrote:
Lieven L. Litaer:
Indeed this sometimes causes ambiguous situations, and if you really want to avoid ambiguity, you must either rephrase it, or add suffixes like {-qu'} to mark the important suffix. But there's no way to change the system of the suffixes order. And after a while you will even get used to the correct order.
Besides, a suffix does not only modify its preceding suffixes or word parts, it modifies the entire thing. It really is hard sometimes, and you cannot do wordplays you may do in English by switching words.
(TKD 175): This suffix [i.e. {-ba'}] is used when the speaker thinks that his or her assertion should be obvious to the listener. Nevertheless, there is still room for doubt; the suffix does not imply as strong a conviction as {-bej} certainly.
Note that Okrand said that the "assertion should be obvious to the listener", not the previous suffix or part of speech. As Lieven said, the numbered suffixes modify the entire utterance. It's one of Okrand's "just because" rules which we must accept. Only Rover suffixes can be freely moved around. (Indeed, that's why they are called rovers.) Most of our evidence comes from written texts but I imagine that in speech one could draw attention to the important suffix, if needed, by using extra stress, a slight pause, a gesture, etc.
Are there agglutinative languages where suffixes must be used in a specific order like Klingon? If so, how do speakers of those languages emphasize one element? Or do they? Perhaps they're so used to listening "holistically" to the utterance that they aren't consciously aware of the order -- except when someone (a foreigner for example) gets it wrong, and then it's perceived as an ignorant mistake and not personal style.
--Voragh _______________________________________________ tlhIngan-Hol mailing list tlhIngan-Hol@lists.kli.org http://lists.kli.org/listinfo.cgi/tlhingan-hol-kli.org
jatlhpu' Voragh:
Are there agglutinative languages where suffixes must be used in a specific order like Klingon?
jangpu' 'arHa, jatlh:
I'm not an expert but my sense is that this is generally the case with most agglutinative languages.
In a great many, yes. In Ubykh, for instance, the lexical aspect suffixes -ạy (≈ Klingon -qa'), -la (similar to some senses of Klingon -chu') and -fa (≈ Klingon -laH) are all possible on a single verb, but they absolutely must appear in this order: azbyạylafan = vIleghqa'laHchu' "I can see it perfectly again". No other order is generally tolerated. QeS 'utlh
On Thu, Jun 7, 2018 at 10:45 AM, Steven Boozer <sboozer@uchicago.edu> wrote:
Are there agglutinative languages where suffixes must be used in a specific order like Klingon?
The Wikipedia article on Agglutination suggests that Klingon's rigid suffix class order is typical. If so, how do speakers of those languages emphasize one element? Or do
they?
Emphasis in Korean is done with vocal stress or with redundant wording. Hungarian seems to be similar. Quechua has an "emphatic" suffix, but I don't know its scope. -- ghunchu'wI'
On Thu, 7 Jun 2018 at 15:26, Daniel Dadap <daniel@dadap.net> wrote:
Obviously, position is semantically significant for rovers, but does it have any semantic significance for fixed-position verb suffixes?
I wanted to express “I obviously need to be able to speak Federation Standard”, which I initially composed as {DIvI' Hol vIjatlhlaHnISba'}; however, after checking my verb suffix types, realized that this was ungrammatical. However, the grammatically correct {DIvI' Hol vIjatlhnISlaHba'} seems like it should mean something else to me: “I obviously can need to speak Federation Standard.”
TKD explains the scope of each type of suffix. Later suffixes do not (necessarily) interact with earlier ones. (Things get weird with {-moH}, though.) {jatlh} is the action. {-nIS} expresses that the subject needs to do it. {-laH} expresses that the verb refers to the ability to do the action. {-ba'} expresses that the speaker/writer of the verb thinks what it asserts should be obvious to the listener/reader. {DIvI' Hol vIjatlhnISlaHba'} is fine for your meaning. -- De'vID
participants (7)
-
Alan Anderson -
Daniel Dadap -
De'vID -
John R. Harness -
Lieven L. Litaer -
Rhona Fenwick -
Steven Boozer