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".

That's exactly the problem: assuming we have no blanket rule against QAO, which we might have, the criteria for the okay ones are not clear at all due to insufficient examples. nuq Datlhutlh DaneH appears to be a known good example. Beyond that it's unclear to me.

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?

Sensible question? Yes. Legal grammar? I don't know. What DloraH reported would suggest a recasting would be more appropriate: SuvmeH to'maj ra'bogh ghaH yIngu' identify the our fighting tactics which he commanded. I recognize that this isn't a case of an inappropriate relative pronoun.

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}.

But it's also the case that they operate differently than the other question words: they stand in for the answer. Other question words sometimes occupy the same space as the answer, but they don't stand in for it.

I agree that there's nothing in TKD to directly contradict the use of QAO, but there are questions about how it would work and whether it's even allowed. I understand how you're creating QAOs and usually what they mean. I'm saying our understanding of them and their legality remains in question (as object).

-- 
SuStel
http://trimboli.name