Speculation: ship in which I fled
A conversation on DuoLingo got me thinking. Okrand said long ago that he could not get the head noun of a relative clause to fit anywhere except as the subject or object of that clause. We accept this as meaning Klingon doesn't allow this, though all Okrand really said was he couldn't see how to do it. Consider the text of /The Klingon Dictionary:/ "The whole construction (relative clause plus head noun), as a unit, is used in the sentence as a noun." I don't know about you, but this is not the mental image of relative clauses I have in my head. I imagine the main clause as a line, the head noun "pinned" to its place on that line, and the relative clause dangling off of the pinned head noun. But the text of TKD may suggest a different picture: the head noun plus verbal clause may be an enclosed package, no dangling, and whatever is part of the relative clause is isolated from interaction with the main clause. The main sentence, in other words, doesn't care what part the relative clause is the head noun; all it cares about is that something called "relative clause" is acting as a noun in a particular spot. For example, if *Duj vIleghpu'bogh* /ship which I saw/ is said to be equal to /X,/ then we can insert it into a main clause *vIngu'laH*/I can identify it/ like so: /*X*/*vIngu'laH* /I can identify X./ As far as the main clause is concerned, /X/ is a black box, internally any noun phrase it wants to be. So, let's suppose we start with a phrase, *DujDaq jIHaw'*/I flee on a ship./ Let's us further suppose... and bear with me here... that we don't have to make the head noun the subject or object of the relative clause. What if we can say *DujDaq jIHaw'bogh*/ship on which I flee./ Being the only noun in the clause, it's the only candidate for head noun. Let's suppose that it is. Just suppose. Now just take the noun phrase as a black box and stick it into the main sentence, *vIngu'laH*/I can identify it./**We get: *DujDaq jIHaw'bogh vIngu'laH* /I can identify the ship in which I fled. /As far as the main sentence goes, this is not a locative, just a regular noun phrase. // Yes, yes, I realize that the listener has no idea that *DujDaq jIHaw'bogh* is supposed to be a unit and that I'm not actually identifying something while I'm on a ship. I remember that Okrand didn't agree to this in his interview. All I'm saying is, it doesn't /actually/ contradict TKD, and Okrand didn't /actually/ say you can't do it. The phrasing used in TKD makes such a construction not completely impossible. There's one major problem with this idea: if you need to use main-sentence syntactic suffixes on the relative clause, you have to attach them to the head noun, which means the main sentence /does/ see the inner parts of the relative clause, so it's not really a black box after all. Note: I'm not advocating for this idea here. I'm just publicly speculating. The Ship In Which I Fled Problem is one of those things that I constantly run up against and would like to pound into the ground. -- SuStel http://trimboli.name
SuStel: I presume you read this post of Alan Anderson's from last September and have been giving it thought: http://diswww.mit.edu/charon.MIT.EDU/ja'chuq/110966 I was more than a little surprised that his post did not elicit further comment, but perhaps it required some time to digest. I find your speculation both surprising and welcome, due to what has seemed to me to be your arch-conservatism in these matters, though I may have been mistaken in that regard. I don't have a problem with the description you cite of the relative clause in TKD. I see a relative clause as being like an adjective that describes the noun. One can say either *Duj Doq vIlegh* or *Doqbogh Duj vIlegh* *(I see the red ship* or *I see the ship that is red*). The difference as I see it is akin to how English uses a comma to separate a relative clause that merely provides additional information while not doing so with one that is necessary to identify the noun. But of course TKD describes itself as a grammatical sketch, leaving wiggle-room, which is something Okrand evidently wants, and who can blame him? If as you suggest (or speculate or advocate: it's all fine as long as no one pretends to authority that is not his), the locative (or for that matter causative) noun of the relative clause can be the object of the main clause, couldn't it be the subject as well? Then one could say *Saq DujDaq jIHaw'bogh* *The ship on which I fled landed*. What do you make of this? I see another major problem, besides the main verb being able to "see" into the relative clause, and one which is not totally unrelated to the problem of whether a preceding modifier acts on a relative clause preceding the main clause or on the main clause. (Example: *vengDaq jIlwI' ghaHpu' loD'e' vIlegh* Does it mean *I saw the man who had been my neighbor in the city* or *In the city, I saw the man who had been my neighbor*?) The example you use has only one possible candidate for head noun. If there's only one candidate for head noun, it could conceivably fill some other slot in the main clause, but if there are more than one, which gets priority? (Alan's post I referred to above suggests a way around this dilemma in at least some cases.) The choppy short sentence technique (which you have advocated most persuasively) also seems to offer a way around the problem: your *DujDaq jIHaw'bogh vIngu'laH* *I can identify the ship in which I fled* could simply be rendered as *DujDaq jIHaw' vIngu'laH** I fled in a ship. I can identify it.* English speakers might consider the first sentence pedantic if the listener already knows the speaker fled in a ship, but Klingons might have no problem with this way of recapping known information. It also has the virtue of brevity. Lastly, (and I am confident that you won't like this, so please do not let this derail the thread) but your argument that a noun can have another syntactic role in the main clause because it's the only candidate for head noun of a relative clause reminds me of an argument I made for the combination of {-lu'} and {-wI'} to nominalize on the object because it is the only candidate, the subject being pointedly moot. ~mIp'av On Fri, Apr 27, 2018 at 4:29 PM, SuStel <sustel@trimboli.name> wrote:
A conversation on DuoLingo got me thinking. Okrand said long ago that he could not get the head noun of a relative clause to fit anywhere except as the subject or object of that clause. We accept this as meaning Klingon doesn't allow this, though all Okrand really said was he couldn't see how to do it.
Consider the text of *The Klingon Dictionary:* "The whole construction (relative clause plus head noun), as a unit, is used in the sentence as a noun." I don't know about you, but this is not the mental image of relative clauses I have in my head. I imagine the main clause as a line, the head noun "pinned" to its place on that line, and the relative clause dangling off of the pinned head noun. But the text of TKD may suggest a different picture: the head noun plus verbal clause may be an enclosed package, no dangling, and whatever is part of the relative clause is isolated from interaction with the main clause. The main sentence, in other words, doesn't care what part the relative clause is the head noun; all it cares about is that something called "relative clause" is acting as a noun in a particular spot.
For example, if *Duj vIleghpu'bogh* *ship which I saw* is said to be equal to *X,* then we can insert it into a main clause *vIngu'laH** I can identify it* like so: *X** vIngu'laH* *I can identify X.* As far as the main clause is concerned, *X* is a black box, internally any noun phrase it wants to be.
So, let's suppose we start with a phrase, *DujDaq jIHaw'** I flee on a ship.* Let's us further suppose... and bear with me here... that we don't have to make the head noun the subject or object of the relative clause. What if we can say *DujDaq jIHaw'bogh** ship on which I flee.* Being the only noun in the clause, it's the only candidate for head noun. Let's suppose that it is. Just suppose.
Now just take the noun phrase as a black box and stick it into the main sentence, *vIngu'laH** I can identify it.* We get: *DujDaq jIHaw'bogh vIngu'laH* *I can identify the ship in which I fled. *As far as the main sentence goes, this is not a locative, just a regular noun phrase.
Yes, yes, I realize that the listener has no idea that *DujDaq jIHaw'bogh* is supposed to be a unit and that I'm not actually identifying something while I'm on a ship. I remember that Okrand didn't agree to this in his interview. All I'm saying is, it doesn't *actually* contradict TKD, and Okrand didn't *actually* say you can't do it. The phrasing used in TKD makes such a construction not completely impossible.
There's one major problem with this idea: if you need to use main-sentence syntactic suffixes on the relative clause, you have to attach them to the head noun, which means the main sentence *does* see the inner parts of the relative clause, so it's not really a black box after all.
Note: I'm not advocating for this idea here. I'm just publicly speculating. The Ship In Which I Fled Problem is one of those things that I constantly run up against and would like to pound into the ground.
-- SuStelhttp://trimboli.name
_______________________________________________ tlhIngan-Hol mailing list tlhIngan-Hol@lists.kli.org http://lists.kli.org/listinfo.cgi/tlhingan-hol-kli.org
On 4/27/2018 11:21 PM, Ed Bailey wrote:
SuStel: I presume you read this post of Alan Anderson's from last September and have been giving it thought: http://diswww.mit.edu/charon.MIT.EDU/ja'chuq/110966 <http://diswww.mit.edu/charon.MIT.EDU/ja%27chuq/110966>
I read it at the time, but haven't been thinking about it. This came about because of a discussion the other day on DuoLingo. My argument is based on the text of TKD that declares the head noun plus relative clause a "unit." ghunchu'wI''s argument has always been based on the comparison Okrand makes in TKD which describes what a relative clause is in English and includes "the restaurant where we ate." His error, in my opinion, is in believing that Okrand's example of an English relative clause is meant to illustrate possible Klingon relative clauses. It's not. That passage is simply trying to get the English-speaking reader to understand that a relative clause is like an adjective that modifies the head noun. How English constructs relative clauses, and what meanings they encompass, are different things than Klingon. Klingon does not have /the restaurant where we ate./
I find your speculation both surprising and welcome, due to what has seemed to me to be your arch-conservatism in these matters, though I may have been mistaken in that regard.
I have no problem with speculation or musing. I say again: I am NOT saying this is right. I think my idea is WRONG. I am interested merely in considering the implications of treating the relative clause as the described "unit," instead of a head noun pinned to the main clause with the relative clause dangling off of it.
I don't have a problem with the description you cite of the relative clause in TKD. I see a relative clause as being like an adjective that describes the noun. One can say either *Duj Doq vIlegh* or *Doqbogh Duj vIlegh* /(I see the red ship/ or /I see the ship that is red/). The difference as I see it is akin to how English uses a comma to separate a relative clause that merely provides additional information while not doing so with one that is necessary to identify the noun.
These are known as restrictive and non-restrictive clauses. Klingon relative clauses appear to be restrictive; that is, they appear to narrow down the sense of the head noun. But I wouldn't be at all surprised if that isn't an absolute.
If as you suggest (or speculate or advocate: it's all fine as long as no one pretends to authority that is not his),
More than authority: I'm not suggesting or speculating or advocating that this idea is RIGHT. I'm just musing on what the "unit" idea might mean.
the locative (or for that matter causative) noun of the relative clause can be the object of the main clause, couldn't it be the subject as well? Then one could say *Saq DujDaq jIHaw'bogh* /The ship on which I fled landed/. What do you make of this?
If this were correct, then yes, it could do that.
I see another major problem, besides the main verb being able to "see" into the relative clause, and one which is not totally unrelated to the problem of whether a preceding modifier acts on a relative clause preceding the main clause or on the main clause. (Example: *vengDaq jIlwI' ghaHpu' loD'e' vIlegh* Does it mean /I saw the man who had been my neighbor in the city/ or /In the city, I saw the man who had been my neighbor/?) The example you use has only one possible candidate for head noun. If there's only one candidate for head noun, it could conceivably fill some other slot in the main clause, but if there are more than one, which gets priority? (Alan's post I referred to above suggests a way around this dilemma in at least some cases.)
You forgot the *-bogh* in the example. This is a poor example, because as a "to be" sentence the final noun requires an *-'e',* automatically making it the head noun. You have no choice. A more interesting example would be how to say /I see the ship in which the captain fled./ If you try *DujDaq Haw'pu'bogh HoD vIlegh,* how would you know that *DujDaq,* and not *HoD,* is supposed to be the head noun? You wouldn't.
The choppy short sentence technique (which you have advocated most persuasively) also seems to offer a way around the problem: your *DujDaq jIHaw'bogh vIngu'laH* /I can identify the ship in which I fled/ could simply be rendered as *DujDaq jIHaw' vIngu'laH*/I fled in a ship. I can identify it./ English speakers might consider the first sentence pedantic if the listener already knows the speaker fled in a ship, but Klingons might have no problem with this way of recapping known information. It also has the virtue of brevity.
Add a *-pu'* and I'd be happy, because I'm imagining a ship in which I made a complete getaway. If you say *DujDaq jIHaw'pu'; vIngu'laH *as a smooth utterance, with only the slightest pause between them, you get something very similar to the *'uSDaj chop; chev!* /Bite his arm off! /of /Power Klingon./ Your cadence will make it clear to listeners that this is a single idea, even if it is presented in two "basic sentences." I am utterly convinced that Klingons combine these smaller ideas into larger ideas as a matter of course. A hundred years and more ago, it was all the rage for English writers to use tremendously long and complicated sentences. I've thought about translating /The War of the Worlds,/ and it would involve breaking these huge sentences down into tiny chunks. Here's the first sentence: No one would have believed in the last years of the nineteenth century that this world was being watched keenly and closely by intelligences greater than man's and yet as mortal as his own; that as men busied themselves about their various concerns they were scrutinised and studied, perhaps almost as narrowly as a man with a microscope might scrutinise the transient creatures that swarm and multiply in a drop of water. One idea per sentence? Pshaw! If you were writing that in modern, colloquial English you'd have to break it down into several sentences, let alone translating it into Klingon. I did translate the first line once; look how many "sentences" it contains (basic sentences, "to be" sentences, comparatives, and sentence-as-object each count as one "sentence"; conjunctions count as multiple "sentences"): DIS poH wa'maH Hut Dor qo'vam lubejchu'taH yabDu' net Harbe'; yabDu'vam 'Itlh law' Human yab 'Itlh puS, 'ach jubbe' yabDu'vam. malja' Sar HuqtaHvIS Humanpu' lunuDlu'chu'taH 'ej luHaDlu'taH, net Harbe'. bIQ chovnatlh HotlhlaH Hoqra' lo'bogh Human, 'ej pa' qevbogh DepHommey 'ej Sepbogh nuDchu'laH; Humanvam lurur bejwI'pu'. By my count, I used nine "sentences" to cover just one English sentence. It really is not a big deal to split one small English sentence into two small Klingon sentences.
Lastly, (and I am confident that you won't like this, so please do not let this derail the thread) but your argument that a noun can have another syntactic role in the main clause because it's the only candidate for head noun of a relative clause reminds me of an argument I made for the combination of {-lu'} and {-wI'} to nominalize on the object because it is the only candidate, the subject being pointedly moot.
My argument is not that the locative noun of the relative clause must be the head noun because no other noun can be; my argument is that the locative noun can be RECOGNIZED as the head noun because there is no other noun distracting you from that conclusion. You have to first accept the notion that some noun other than the subject or object of the relative clause can be the head noun. I don't accept the argument that *-lu'* + *-wI'* must nominalize the object because there's no subject available. *-wI'* never nominalizes the object. There is no rule, no example, that supports any evidence at all that *-wI'* can nominalize objects. IF there were such a rule, then I might consider the idea that, lacking a subject, it would nominalize the object. But there is no such rule, and no evidence that any such rule exists. -- SuStel http://trimboli.name
SIbI' jIjangbe' 'e' vIpay 'a qaStaHvIS wej jajvam Seng vIDIghtaH. jIjatlh: the locative (or for that matter causative) noun of the relative clause can be the object of the main clause, couldn't it be the subject as well? Then one could say *Saq DujDaq jIHaw'bogh* *The ship on which I fled landed*. What do you make of this? jatlh SuStel: If this were correct, then yes, it could do that. This reverses the peculiarity of *meQtaHbogh qachDaq Suv qoH neH* in which a noun with a Type 5 suffix other than *-'e'* can be the subject of a verb+ *bogh*. I don't expect anyone to feel particularly comfortable with this, though that doesn't argue against it. jIjatlh: I see another major problem, besides the main verb being able to "see" into the relative clause, and one which is not totally unrelated to the problem of whether a preceding modifier acts on a relative clause preceding the main clause or on the main clause. (Example: *vengDaq jIlwI' ghaHpu' loD'e' vIlegh* Does it mean *I saw the man who had been my neighbor in the city* or *In the city, I saw the man who had been my neighbor*?) The example you use has only one possible candidate for head noun. If there's only one candidate for head noun, it could conceivably fill some other slot in the main clause, but if there are more than one, which gets priority? (Alan's post I referred to above suggests a way around this dilemma in at least some cases.) jatlh SuStel: You forgot the *-bogh* in the example. This is a poor example, because as a "to be" sentence the final noun requires an *-'e',* automatically making it the head noun. You have no choice. HIvqa' veqlargh! jatlh SuStel: A more interesting example would be how to say *I see the ship in which the captain fled.* If you try *DujDaq Haw'pu'bogh HoD vIlegh,* how would you know that *DujDaq,* and not *HoD,* is supposed to be the head noun? You wouldn't. And head nouns are normally subjects and objects, so in the above I'd assume the speaker sees the captain. Changing the above to *DujDaq Haw'pu'bogh HoD vI'or* causes *HoD* to make no sense as the head noun, but on the other hand, why should the identification of head noun depend on the wording and not on sentence construction? So I would not expect that to be the way to say "I pilot the ship the captain fled in." It should always to be possible to construct a sentence with a relative clause so that the head noun is clearly indicated, even if all the all the root words are blanked out. The more unusual relative clauses in Klingon (canon or speculative) remind me of nonstandard relative clauses in some English dialects, e.g. "He left the shop to his son, which all he wanted was drink." This makes me envision a relative clause as an appended sentence with *-bogh*, but of course why bother with the *-bogh*? Just tack a short sentence on, as you have suggested. Your example in which you translate the first sentence of War of the Worlds illustrates that there is no need to translate sentence-for-sentence, though I don't understand your use of *Dor* in *DIS poH wa'maH Hut Dor* "in the last years of the nineteenth century;" I'd say *DortaHvIS DIS poH wa'maH Hut*. jIjatlh: Lastly, (and I am confident that you won't like this, so please do not let this derail the thread) but your argument that a noun can have another syntactic role in the main clause because it's the only candidate for head noun of a relative clause reminds me of an argument I made for the combination of {-lu'} and {-wI'} to nominalize on the object because it is the only candidate, the subject being pointedly moot. jatlh SuStel: My argument is not that the locative noun of the relative clause must be the head noun because no other noun can be; my argument is that the locative noun can be RECOGNIZED as the head noun because there is no other noun distracting you from that conclusion. You have to first accept the notion that some noun other than the subject or object of the relative clause can be the head noun. I don't accept the argument that *-lu'* + *-wI'* must nominalize the object because there's no subject available. *-wI'* never nominalizes the object. There is no rule, no example, that supports any evidence at all that *-wI'* can nominalize objects. IF there were such a rule, then I might consider the idea that, lacking a subject, it would nominalize the object. But there is no such rule, and no evidence that any such rule exists. I agree wholeheartedly that the evidence does not lead to the conclusion that *-lu'* + *-wI'* nominalizes the object. I merely like the idea, since it would be handy. If it were a horse race, I'd put my $2 down on it, but for all I know, someone else might win big betting on the longshot *one who does ___ while wearing a pink tutu*. ~mIp'av
participants (2)
-
Ed Bailey -
SuStel