On 13 July 2016 at 18:23, Lieven <levinius@gmx.de> wrote:
I still think they are illegal. Nothing from that email makes it clear that QAO are legal, especially when using question words a relative pronouns.
Please read the email correctly:
DloraH wrote 1998: - You can not use a "question" as an object; [...] - So basicly we didn't really get anywhere with this one yet. The safest thing for now would be to recast if possible.
Here's the relevant portion of DloraH's report in its entirety: "Hopefully I won't misquote Marc. Lawrence was with us during some of our conversations. The first one I nailed him with was our lovely QAO. Uh-oh. You can not use a "question" as an object; but... it is not known yet if Klingon question words can act as one of those relative things, uh, relative pronoun is it? You guys know what I'm refering to. So basicly we didn't really get anywhere with this one yet. The safest thing for now would be to recast if possible." 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". 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. Maybe DloraH or Lawrence can clear this up.
Felix' interpretation of 2011 seems wrong in my opinion, since the phrase is not a real "question" as object; It cannot be used for all the other questions. In this case, it's a normal question where the question word "nuq" is used as a replacement for the answer. It's still a question. If anything, this maybe only works with few questions words, or maybe only with the verb "want"... it's not really clear.
I would not generalize that QAO is legal just because of this one example.
Perhaps the above report is accurate and Okrand really did say that QAO constructions are illegal, but based on just what's in TKD 6.2.5 and 6.4, there's no reason why they should be. TKD 6.2.5 tells us that one sentence can be the object of another. TKD 6.4 tells us how to form questions. Nothing says that the two sets of rules are exclusive. {nuqDaq maSuv 'e' ra' HoD} "where did the captain order us to fight?"; "the captain ordered us to fight; where do we fight?" {maSuv nuqDaq 'e' ra' HoD} "where did the captain order us to fight?"; "the captain ordered us to fight; where was the captain when he ordered us?" There's also no reason why {nuq} and {'Iv} can't replace a noun in either sentence in a SAO construction. {'Iv wISuv 'e' ra' HoD?} {jagh wISuv 'e' ra' 'Iv?} And do these recastings with {ngu'} any clearer? {DaqDaq maSuv 'e' ra' HoD; Daqvam yIngu'} {nuv wISuv 'e' ra' HoD; nuvvam yIngu'} or maybe {nuv wISuv 'e' ra'bogh HoD yIngu'}, although this could be asking to identify the captain, and it's not clear that sticking {-'e'} on the {nuv} would make it clear that {nuv'e' wISuvbogh} is the intended head noun of {ra'}. I think the idea that QAO constructions are illegal is a rule the community accidentally made up because people were confused about terminology. -- De'vID