[tlhIngan Hol] The book of our good captain

SuStel sustel at trimboli.name
Thu Jul 14 06:38:23 PDT 2016


On 7/14/2016 4:21 AM, De'vID wrote:
> On 13 July 2016 at 17:08, SuStel <sustel at trimboli.name> wrote:
>> We got our first question-as-object sentence from Okrand in TalkNow!: nuq
>> Datlhutlh DaneH What do you want to drink? This supports the idea that you
>> can use the pronoun-like (not relative pronoun) question words nuq and 'Iv
>> in the place of the answer, just as TKD describes, even if it's in the first
>> sentence of a sentence-as-object construction.
> And in particular, {nuq Datlhutlh DaneH} does *not* mean "you want
> what you drink".
>
>>> Would anyone on this mailing list even blink if they heard a Klingon
>>> ask {'Iv vIHoH DaneH}? Or misinterpret it as "you want who I kill"?
>> I would blink, because I'd be thinking, "Oh, it's a question-as-object
>> construction, but it's one of the okay ones."
> I'm still not clear on what the criteria are for being not "one of the
> okay ones".


That's exactly the problem: assuming we have no blanket rule against 
QAO, which we might have, the criteria for the okay ones are not clear 
at all due to insufficient examples. *nuq Datlhutlh DaneH* appears to be 
a known good example. Beyond that it's unclear to me.


> As far as I can see, and perhaps I'm not seeing something, there is
> nothing wrong from a Klingon grammar perspective with QAO
> constructions. The problem is really of the question word being
> misinterpreted as a relative pronoun, because question words and
> relative pronouns happen to overlap in English (but not in Klingon).
>
>>> I actually think {chay' veSDuj'a' vIghajlaH DaH 'e' boyajchoH} is a
>>> perfectly grammatical Klingon sentence, just one that doesn't mean
>>> what Krankor wrote it means.
>> If it's grammatical, I don't understand what it means.
> Hmm. It's quite clear to me what it means, which doesn't mean that it
> means anything. It also doesn't mean it's easy to express the meaning
> in English.
>
> Okay, do you understand {chay' maSuv 'e' ra'}? And do you accept that
> this is asking a perfectly sensible question?

Sensible question? Yes. Legal grammar? I don't know. What DloraH 
reported would suggest a recasting would be more appropriate: *SuvmeH 
to'maj ra'bogh ghaH yIngu'*/identify the our fighting tactics which he 
commanded./ I recognize that this isn't a case of an inappropriate 
relative pronoun.


> Maybe one way to think of question words is that they are turning a
> statement into a question. That's obvious with {nuq} and {'Iv}.


But it's also the case that they operate differently than the other 
question words: they stand in for the answer. Other question words 
sometimes occupy the same space as the answer, but they don't stand in 
for it.

I agree that there's nothing in TKD to directly contradict the use of 
QAO, but there are questions about how it would work and whether it's 
even allowed. I understand /how/ you're creating QAOs and usually what 
they mean. I'm saying our understanding of them and their legality 
remains in question (as object).


-- 
SuStel
http://trimboli.name

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.kli.org/pipermail/tlhingan-hol-kli.org/attachments/20160714/44863e64/attachment.htm>


More information about the tlhIngan-Hol mailing list