[tlhIngan Hol] The book of our good captain

[De'vID]

On 13 July 2016 at 10:38, Lieven <levinius at gmx.de> wrote:
> I believe this was not yeat answered, or did I miss it?

There was an earlier message by SuStel warning about taking Krankor's
examples as models.

> Am 04.07.2016 um 11:09 schrieb mayqel qunenoS:
>>
>> p.15 TGD:
>>
>> {chay' veSDuj'a' vIghajlaH DaH 'e' boyajchoH}
>> now you're all beginning to understand how I'm able to own a great warship
>>
>> This is written as an example of a correct sentence, but I don't think
>> that it is ; the {chay'} can't be used in this way.
>
>
> You are feeling correct. This theoretical construction would be a Question
> as Object, and has frequently been discussed as being not correct:

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.

For example, {nuq vIghaj 'e' DaSov} appears to me to be a perfectly
good Klingon question meaning "what do you know I have?" Isn't the QAO
error just in misinterpreting this sentence to mean "you know what I
have" (using {nuq} "what" as a relative pronoun)?

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"?

> [chay' veSDuj'a' vIghajlaH?] - DaH 'e' boyajchoH
>
> The problem is that in english (and many other languages), the question
> words can function as relative pronouns, like "I know why you are here" "I
> see what you did". That does not work in Klingon.
>
> At least that's the latest information I know.

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.

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.?)"

What's the rationale for saying that QAO *constructions* are illegal,
rather than just that they shouldn't be *misinterpreted* as statements
with relative pronouns?

-- 
De'vID