[tlhIngan Hol] The book of our good captain

[De'vID]

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".

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?

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}.

{'Iv vIlegh} "who do I see?"; we can think this as "I see a person;
who is this person?"

It's similar with {chay'}:
{chay' maSuv} "how do we fight?"; we can think of it as "we fight; how
do we do it?"

{maSuv 'e' ra'} "he commands that we fight"
{chay' maSuv 'e' ra'} "he command that we fight; how do we fight?", or
"how does he command that we fight?" In Klingon, unlike in English,
this is unambiguously asking about the manner of fighting, rather than
the manner of commanding. Another way to phrase this is perhaps with a
parenthetical statement: "how do we, as he command us, fight?"

{veSDuj'a' vIghajlaH DaH 'e' boyajchoH} "now you (pl) begin to
understand that I can have a great-warship"

{chay' veSDuj'a' vIghajlaH DaH 'e' boyajchoH} "now you (pl) begin to
understand that I can have a great-warship; how can I have a
great-warship?"; perhaps this can be phrased more naturally as "how
can I, as you now begin to understand, have a great-warship?"

Admittedly, this is a somewhat convoluted sentence, and perhaps a
Klingon would prefer something more economical rather than make what
seems to be a parenthetical statement in the English translation, but
grammatically, at least, it makes perfect sense to me. (Or, at least
it makes as much sense as {chay' maSuv 'e' ra'}.)

The above can be contrasted with:
{veSDuj'a' vIghajlaH chay' DaH 'e' boyajchoH}
"how are you (pl) now beginning to understand that I can have a great-warship?"

The placement of {chay'} determines whether the question is about the
manner of having or the manner of understanding.

> Although they are not spelled out in TKD, based on the TalkNow! example I
> would probably also accept sentences like:

I'll "translate" each of them into the explicit statement-question
form I used above.

> nuqDaq bItlhutlh DaneH
> where do you want to drink?

You want to drink someplace; where is that place?

> ghorgh bItlhutlh DaneH
> when do you want to drink?

You want to drink; when do you want to do it?

> HIq 'ar Datlhutlh DaneH
> how many ales do you want to drink?

You want to drink ales; how many ales?

> chay' Datlhutlh DaneH
> how do you want to drink?

You want to drink it; how?

> But, as you say, I wouldn't accept sentences in which the question word is
> being used as a relative pronoun.

Do you mean you wouldn't accept the Klingon sentences, or the English
translations? Because, from what I can tell, there's nothing wrong in
Klingon grammar with QAO constructions. (Of course, some such
constructions might be nonsensical.) The issue really is the English
misinterpretation of them.

-- 
De'vID