[tlhIngan Hol] Disturbing irregularities

[mayqel qunenoS]

De'vID :
> Question words (in this case, nuq "what?") function the same way
> pronouns do in questions with "to be" in the English translations.

This means that the {'Iv} and {nuq} don't mean just "who" or "what",
but their actual meaning is "who is" and "what is" ?

De'vID :
> Thus, the question yIH nuq? "What is a tribble?" is exactly parallel
> the statement yIH 'oH "It is a tribble" (where yIH is "tribble" and
> 'oH is "it"). The answer to the question yIH nuq? ("What is a
> tribble?") would presumably be a definition or description of a
> tribble.]

1. I can't understand this sentence : "Thus, the question yIH nuq?
"What is a tribble?" is exactly parallel the statement yIH 'oH "It is
a tribble".

2. {yIH nuq} and {nuq yIH} are the same, and they mean "what is a
tribble" right ?

3. How do I ask "who is a/the tribble?"

De'vID :
> {'Iv ghaH} - the expected answer to this is a sentence of the form {X ghaH},
> e.g., {Duy ghaH}. {ghaH 'Iv} - the expected answer to this is a definition or
> description of "him". {Duy ghaH} is an acceptable answer, but you
> might also answer {qepvammo' DIvI'vaD SutlhmeH naDev ngeHpu' DIvI'} or
> something that describes the person.

1. So, {'Iv ghaH} and {ghaH 'Iv} are the same, and they mean "what is
he" ? But then why don't we use {nuq} ?

2. If I want to ask "who is he", do I use {'Iv ghaH}, {ghaH 'Iv}, or
can I use both ?

This is by far the single most confusing part of klingon I have
encountered, from the first day I started studying it.

On Thu, Jun 23, 2016 at 1:13 PM, De'vID <de.vid.jonpin at gmail.com> wrote:
> On 23 June 2016 at 11:49, mayqel qunenoS <mihkoun at gmail.com> wrote:
>> DevID:
>>> the answer to {'Iv SoH} should take the form
>>> {X SoH} (and not {X jIH}). {SoH 'Iv} avoids this problem.
>>
>> I can't understand this. Why when someone asks me {'Iv SoH}, I can't
>> reply saying {mayqel jIH}, and be consistent with the TKD ?
>>
>> I would be placing the answer {mayqel} at the place of the {'Iv} and I
>> would have replaced -necessarily- the {SoH}, with {jIH}. Is this
>> replacement, the point you're trying to make ?
>
> TKD 6.4 says:
> [For {'Iv} "who?" and {nuq} "what?" the question word fits into the
> sentence in the position that would be occupied by the
> answer.]
>
> Strictly speaking, if you want to be some kind of TKD-literalist, to
> form the answer to a question with {'Iv} or {nuq}, you take the
> question and just replace the question word with the answer.
>
> Obviously, if I ask you {'Iv SoH}, the correct answer isn't {mayqel SoH}.
>
>> Do you mean, that by using {SoH 'Iv} and replying {mayqel jIH}, the
>> replacement matter is overcome, because the answer doesn't just
>> replace the {'Iv} of the {'Iv SoH} (if we had used it), but employs a
>> different word order altogether ?
>
> It employs a different _rule_ altogether.
>
>> But if that's the case, then the {SoH 'Iv}, not only it doesn't
>> address any matter at all, but it contradicts the rule that "the {'Iv}
>> takes the place of the answer in a
>> sentence", since the answer {mayqel jIH}, doesn't just replace the
>> {'Iv} but changes the word order altogether.
>
> No, you're not getting that there are _two different rules_ in operation here.
>
> From http://klingonska.org/canon/1996-12-12b-news.txt:
> [Question words (in this case, nuq "what?") function the same way
> pronouns do in questions with "to be" in the English translations.
> Thus, the question yIH nuq? "What is a tribble?" is exactly parallel
> the statement yIH 'oH "It is a tribble" (where yIH is "tribble" and
> 'oH is "it"). The answer to the question yIH nuq? ("What is a
> tribble?") would presumably be a definition or description of a
> tribble.]
>
> When {'Iv} is used as a pronoun in a question with "to be" in the
> English translation, the expected answer to a question like {SoH 'Iv}
> is a definition or description of {SoH} "you".
>
> You're trying to invent a rule that allows you to put the question
> word either at the front or back of a question, when in fact there are
> two _different_ rules for asking (subtly) different types of
> questions.
>
> {'Iv ghaH} - the expected answer to this is a sentence of the form {X
> ghaH}, e.g., {Duy ghaH}.
> {ghaH 'Iv} - the expected answer to this is a definition or
> description of "him". {Duy ghaH} is an acceptable answer, but you
> might also answer {qepvammo' DIvI'vaD SutlhmeH naDev ngeHpu' DIvI'} or
> something that describes the person.
>
> I suspect in practice the questions are really interchangeable and the
> explanation in TKD 6.4 isn't so strictly followed when the pronoun is
> {jIH}, {SoH}, etc. (i.e., a pronoun that requires a change in the
> answer).
>
>> This whole matter resembles quick sand ; the more I try to understand,
>> the deeper I get..
>
> What _practical_ thing are you actually confused about? Is there
> something you want to say but don't know how?
>
> --
> De'vID
> _______________________________________________
> tlhIngan-Hol mailing list
> tlhIngan-Hol at lists.kli.org
> http://lists.kli.org/listinfo.cgi/tlhingan-hol-kli.org