On 13 July 2016 at 10:38, Lieven <levinius@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