[tlhIngan Hol] The book of our good captain

[De'vID]

On 13 July 2016 at 18:23, Lieven <levinius at gmx.de> wrote:
> I still think they are illegal. Nothing from that email makes it clear that
> QAO are legal, especially when using question words a relative pronouns.
>
> Please read the email correctly:
>
> DloraH wrote 1998:
> - You can not use a "question" as an object; [...]
> - So basicly we didn't really get anywhere with this one yet. The safest
> thing for now would be to recast if possible.

Here's the relevant portion of DloraH's report in its entirety:
"Hopefully I won't misquote Marc.  Lawrence was with us during some of
our conversations.
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."

Note the quotes around the word "question". If Okrand had really been
asked straightforwardly whether a question (any sort of question) can
be the object of a sentence, I'd have expected the report to say "You
can not use a question as an object" without the quotes. To me, it
reads like the questioner was confused about terminology and was using
the word "question" (in quotes) to mean "sentences where question
words are misused as relative pronouns".

The suggestion to recast, as I read it, applies only to sentences
where an attempt is being made to use question words as relative
pronouns.

Maybe DloraH or Lawrence can clear this up.

> Felix' interpretation of 2011 seems wrong in my opinion, since the phrase is
> not a real "question" as object; It cannot be used for all the other
> questions. In this case, it's a normal question where the question word
> "nuq" is used as a replacement for the answer. It's still a question. If
> anything, this maybe only works with few questions words, or maybe only with
> the verb "want"... it's not really clear.
>
> I would not generalize that QAO is legal just because of this one example.

Perhaps the above report is accurate and Okrand really did say that
QAO constructions are illegal, but based on just what's in TKD 6.2.5
and 6.4, there's no reason why they should be. TKD 6.2.5 tells us that
one sentence can be the object of another. TKD 6.4 tells us how to
form questions. Nothing says that the two sets of rules are exclusive.

{nuqDaq maSuv 'e' ra' HoD} "where did the captain order us to fight?";
"the captain ordered us to fight; where do we fight?"

{maSuv nuqDaq 'e' ra' HoD} "where did the captain order us to fight?";
"the captain ordered us to fight; where was the captain when he
ordered us?"

There's also no reason why {nuq} and {'Iv} can't replace a noun in
either sentence in a SAO construction.

{'Iv wISuv 'e' ra' HoD?}
{jagh wISuv 'e' ra' 'Iv?}

And do these recastings with {ngu'} any clearer?

{DaqDaq maSuv 'e' ra' HoD; Daqvam yIngu'}
{nuv wISuv 'e' ra' HoD; nuvvam yIngu'} or maybe {nuv wISuv 'e' ra'bogh
HoD yIngu'}, although this could be asking to identify the captain,
and it's not clear that sticking {-'e'} on the {nuv} would make it
clear that {nuv'e' wISuvbogh} is the intended head noun of {ra'}.

I think the idea that QAO constructions are illegal is a rule the
community accidentally made up because people were confused about
terminology.

-- 
De'vID