On 13 July 2016 at 17:08, SuStel <sustel@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