[tlhIngan Hol] The book of our good captain

[mayqel qunenoS]

QIn ghomvamDaq vaghmaH wej QIn tu'lu'..

Hoch QInmeyvam tu'lu' 'ej tagh Hoch QInmmeyvam, the grammarians desk
vIlaDta'mo' !

Doj, 'a Dojqu' ngoDvam :

vaghmaH wej QIn tu'lu', 'ej yajlaHbe'taH taghwI' !

hahahahaha

On Fri, Jul 15, 2016 at 12:44 PM, mayqel qunenoS <mihkoun at gmail.com> wrote:
> nachwIj 'oy'moH QIn ghomvam..
>
> On Fri, Jul 15, 2016 at 11:08 AM, De'vID <de.vid.jonpin at gmail.com> wrote:
>> On 14 July 2016 at 14:00, DloraH <seruq at bellsouth.net> wrote:
>>> On Thu, 2016-07-14 at 11:31 +0200, De'vID wrote:
>>>> 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".
>>>
>>> No, those quotes were not from confusion about the word "question".
>>> In plain-text, there is only so much that one can do to express things.
>>> We can't bold, can't italicize, you can't see my face or hands.  I used
>>> quotes to emphasis that I was talking about an actual question.
>>> Back then, there was much arguing on this list about QAO.  At that
>>> convention I even started my question with "Much blood has been
>>> spilled..."  I believe I even heard someone mutter "Uh-oh", and the look
>>> on some of the faces, I think they knew what was coming.
>>> MO said we cannot ask a question in a QAO.  I think someone put out an
>>> example, and MO said he couldn't figure out what it would actually mean.
>>> And for the relative pronoun, at the time, MO wasn't sure if Klingon had
>>> that, or if it did, would they be the same words, the way English uses
>>> the same words for both.
>>
>> I guess I'll just have to go back and try to understand what the
>> controversy was from the archives. I can't imagine what would be
>> controversial about a sentence like {nuq Datlhutlh DaneH}. OTOH, one
>> can certainly construct QAO sentences which are meaningless, like
>> *{HIq Datlhutlh'a' DaneH}, and which I can understand would be
>> disallowed.
>>
>> It's also fairly easy for an English speaker to misinterpret a QAO
>> construction as a sentence with a relative pronoun, e.g., misinterpret
>> {chay' DaHoH 'e' vISov} as "I know how you killed him". And perhaps
>> attaching the {chay'} to {DaHoH} makes for something hard to
>> understand, and it's easier to parse this sentence to mean "how do I
>> know you killed him", which would be clearer as {DaHoH chay' 'e'
>> vISov}. I can see a case here for banning {qatlh} and {chay'} from the
>> first sentence of a SAO. But I can't see any reason why substituting a
>> noun for {nuq} or {'Iv} in the first sentence of a SAO would cause any
>> problems.
>>
>> That is, I can see problems with some QAOs, but not all of them. It
>> seems that the community wanted a binary answer (all or nothing) and
>> got one.
>>
>> Since the qep'a' is less than a week away, maybe y'all can shed more
>> blood about this with Dr. Okrand.
>>
>>>> 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.
>>>
>>> The "recast" meant if you find yourself here, recast.  For both
>>> questions and pronouns.
>>> We know about using [ngu'].  "Which weapon do you want?" [nuH DaneHbogh
>>> yIngu']  The English is a question, but the Klingon is a command.
>>
>> How would you recast a question like {'Iv wISuv 'e' ra' HoD}?
>>
>> --
>> De'vID
>> _______________________________________________
>> tlhIngan-Hol mailing list
>> tlhIngan-Hol at lists.kli.org
>> http://lists.kli.org/listinfo.cgi/tlhingan-hol-kli.org