[tlhIngan Hol] The book of our good captain

mayqel qunenoS mihkoun at gmail.com
Wed Jul 13 08:54:10 PDT 2016

I believe this settles the matter :


--- quote starts ---

In an e-mail from 1998 ( http://klingonska.org/canon/search/?file=1998-05-28-
email.txt&get=source ), DloraH decribed an exchange with Marc Okrand:

"The first one I nailed him with was our lovely QAO. Uh-oh. You can not
use a "question" as an object; but... it is not known yet if Klingon
question words can act as one of those relative things, uh, relative
pronoun is it? You guys know what I'm refering to. So basicly we didn't
really get anywhere with this one yet. The safest thing for now would be
to recast if possible."

This seemed to rule the above alternative out, and there's since been
no indication
that one can use words like nuq and 'Iv as relative pronouns, and MO
seems to prefer
constructions involving -bogh and ngu' (such as <jar DamaSqu'bogh yIngu'>, <nuH
DaneHbogh yIngu'> and <Daq DaDabbogh yIngu'>).

However, there's been one other option up for consideration:
Can you use a question as an object if the resulting two-sentence
construction remains
a question? For example, can we ask:
yan 'ISletlh muv 'Iv DaneH Qang. - Chancellor, who do you want for the
nuq vIjatlh DaneH. - What do you want me to say?
Qang HoHta' 'Iv 'e' Dalegh. - Who did you see kill the Chancellor?

Well, with this new canonical sentence - nuq Datlhutlh DaneH - it
appears that this
ancient question has been answered:

--- quote ends ---

all these months I believed that all qao's are illegal. in dark of the
above, I will be qao'ing as there's no tomorrow.

dth qunnoq

On Wed, Jul 13, 2016 at 6:08 PM, SuStel <sustel at trimboli.name> wrote:
> On 7/13/2016 10:10 AM, De'vID wrote:
> Are you saying that any QAO *construction* is just ungrammatical? I
> was under the impression that what was considered incorrect was
> *misinterpreting* the question word in a QAO sentence as a relative
> pronoun.
> 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.
> 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 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.
> In fact, I think Klingon can express certain questions more
> economically and precisely than English.
> {chay' maSuv 'e' ra'} "how did he order us to fight? (i.e., he ordered
> us to fight; what manner of fighting did he order us to do?)"
> This does *not* mean "he commanded how we fight" as a statement, and
> it can be contrasted with:
> {maSuv chay' 'e' ra'} "how did he order us to fight? (i.e., did he
> talk to us in person, did he send a coded communique by subspace, did
> he send us a message by courier, etc.?)"
> Although they are not spelled out in TKD, based on the TalkNow! example I
> would probably also accept sentences like:
> nuqDaq bItlhutlh DaneH
> where do you want to drink?
> ghorgh bItlhutlh DaneH
> when do you want to drink?
> HIq 'ar Datlhutlh DaneH
> how many ales do you want to drink?
> chay' Datlhutlh DaneH
> how do you want to drink?
> But, as you say, I wouldn't accept sentences in which the question word is
> being used as a relative pronoun.
> --
> SuStel
> http://trimboli.name
> _______________________________________________
> tlhIngan-Hol mailing list
> tlhIngan-Hol at lists.kli.org
> http://lists.kli.org/listinfo.cgi/tlhingan-hol-kli.org

More information about the tlhIngan-Hol mailing list