placement of question words with regards to a {-'e'}ed noun
I always had the impression, that the question words {chay'} and {qatlh} *always* come first in a sentence, as follows: {chay'/qatlh - all kinds of crap which come before the svo - object verb subject} But recently I begun to wonder.. What if we want to ask something like: "as for (noun), why/how whatever" ? Then what happens ? Do we write {noun'e' chay'/qatlh whatever} or do we write {chay'/qatlh noun'e' whatever} ? If I think in english, then {noun'e' chay'/qatlh whatever} "feels" to be more correct. But if I think in klingon, then {chay'/qatlh noun'e' whatever} "feels" better. Is there an answer to this problem, or is it another "figure it out with qeylIS" matter ? ~ mayqel qunen'oS there's an ancient cat hiding in these ruins
Am 27.04.2020 um 16:03 schrieb mayqel qunen'oS:
But recently I begun to wonder.. What if we want to ask something like: "as for (noun), why/how whatever" ? Then what happens ? Do we write {noun'e' chay'/qatlh whatever} or do we write {chay'/qatlh noun'e' whatever} ?
If I think in english, then {noun'e' chay'/qatlh whatever} "feels" to be more correct. But if I think in klingon, then {chay'/qatlh noun'e' whatever} "feels" better.
I have no definite meaning about this, but if someone says the phrase, which is canon: {HaqwI''e' DaH yISam} maybe the answer could be {HaqwI''e' qatlh vISamnIS?} But in this case, it is only said that "the adverbial may follow the object noun", but nobody talks about question words. So we could start a discussion if a question word is an adverbial? I think this only aplies to adverbials, but I think that is sounds quite right to use questions in there as well. Nevertheless, saying it in the correct / usual way certainly is a better way to go, but I know you don't like that answer. :-) BTW, I tried to make a summary of word order in the Wiki, although it does not answer you specific question: klingon.wiki/En/WordOrder Sorry to leave this comment only with a half answer. -- Lieven L. Litaer aka the "Klingon Teacher from Germany" http://www.tlhInganHol.com
On 4/27/2020 1:40 PM, Lieven L. Litaer wrote:
But in this case, it is only said that "the adverbial may follow the object noun", but nobody talks about question words. So we could start a discussion if a question word is an adverbial?
I think this only aplies to adverbials, but I think that is sounds quite right to use questions in there as well.
I have no problem at all with allowing *qatlh* and *chay',* which work just like adverbials, to substitute in the adverbial role for "fronting" objects. Imagine you've just murdered a guard. Your friend sees the body, looks up at you wide-eyed, and whispers: *'avwI''e' qatlh Dachotpu'?* /The guard! Why did you murder him?/ -- SuStel http://trimboli.name
SuStel:
I have no problem at all with allowing qatlh and chay', which work just like adverbials
I'm afraid I can't understand this. Why do the {qatlh} and {chay'} work like adverbials ? How can a question word work like an adverb ? Anyways, there are still questions with regards to this matter.. Even if the {chay'} and {qatlh} can indeed follow a noun marked with {-'e'}.. 1. Is there a rule prohibiting their being placed before it? Is there a rule which forbids us writing: {qatlh 'avwI''e' Dachotpu'?}? The only issue which I can think of, is that when we write {'avwI''e qatlh Dachotpu'?} the translation goes "as for the guard, why did you murder him?". But if we write {qatlh 'avwI''e' Dachotpu'?} then the meaning becomes "why did you murder *the guard*?". i.e. instead of the "as for.." we have an emphasis. Of course, one could wonder, whether we could have a noun marked with {-'e'} in the object slot, without playing the role of the object, but acting as a "as for.." noun. Perhaps, *this* is the most important question here. And if anyone knows the answer, then please do tell me. 2. What happens when the question word is {ghorgh} or {nuqDaq}? Do we write {ghorgh 'avwI''e' Dachotpu'?} or do we write {'avwI''e' ghorgh Dachotpu'?}? Do we write {nuqDaq 'avwI''e' Dachotpu'?} or do we write {'avwI''e' nuqDaq Dachotpu'?}? The same comments apply with regards to the alternate possible translations when the {'avwI''e'} is placed after the question words, as in 1. ~ mayqel qunen'oS the ancient cat I want alive the rest I'll grind beneath my boot
On 4/28/2020 9:22 AM, mayqel qunen'oS wrote:
SuStel:
I have no problem at all with allowing qatlh and chay', which work just like adverbials I'm afraid I can't understand this. Why do the {qatlh} and {chay'} work like adverbials ? How can a question word work like an adverb ?
In general linguistic terminology, an adverbial is a word or phrase that modifies a verb is done. *chay'* asks how a verb is done. Describing how a verb is done is adverbial. *qatlh* is a little less obvious, but when you describe the reason something is done, that's also modifying the verb. Since *chay'* and *qatlh* relate to adverbial concepts in general linguistic terms, it's not a stretch to suppose they resemble the class of Klingon words that Federation linguists call adverbials, at least in their placement. Remember that to Klingon linguists, these are all just *chuvmey.* They don't make these deep distinctions. And non-OVS elements tend to just get thrown in the soup of words at the front anyway. I'm not saying this is absolutely true, just that I wouldn't find it unreasonable to place *chay'* or *qatlh* in a sentence according to the same logic that you would place any adverbial.
Even if the {chay'} and {qatlh} can indeed follow a noun marked with {-'e'}..
1. Is there a rule prohibiting their being placed before it? Is there a rule which forbids us writing: {qatlh 'avwI''e' Dachotpu'?}?
No.
The only issue which I can think of, is that when we write {'avwI''e qatlh Dachotpu'?} the translation goes "as for the guard, why did you murder him?". But if we write {qatlh 'avwI''e' Dachotpu'?} then the meaning becomes "why did you murder *the guard*?". i.e. instead of the "as for.." we have an emphasis.
The rule from the TKD addendum lets you "front" objects marked with *-'e',* put them before adverbials. They apparently remain objects, at least as far as the wording of TKD goes. That means they still represent focus, not topic. However, I bet it's the similarity between topic and focus that lets one do this fronting in the first place. Basically, *'avwI''e' qatlh Dachotpu'* could be interpreted either way. This is an area of grammar we don't have clear information on, so you're not going to get a satisfying answer.
2. What happens when the question word is {ghorgh} or {nuqDaq}?
*ghorgh* and *nuqDaq* also play adverbial-like roles. In *wa'leS mamej*/We leave tomorrow,/ the *wa'leS* is a noun, but it is playing an adverbial role in the general linguistic sense. It modifies the verb. It is not what Federation linguists classify as a Klingon adverbial, but the role it plays IS adverbial. -- SuStel http://trimboli.name
SuStel’s answer is spot on, in terms of the grammar, but I have two points to make: 1. Take any question you can form using a question word (not a yes/no question with {qar’a’}). Consider that there is an answer that uses every word in that sentence except the question word, which provides the answer. The question word should be placed in the question sentence where the answer word naturally appears in the answering sentence. Sometimes the answer is a noun (for {nuq} or {‘Iv}). Sometimes it’s an adverbial (for {qatlh} or {chay’}. Sometimes it’s a time stamp (for {ghorgh}) or a locative {for {nuqDaq}. This method gives you the result in every case that SuStel explains the grammar for, in each case. Maybe there are exceptions to this, but I’m unaware of any. 2. … Okay, I have only one point to make. SuStel’s answer is already better than what I was intending to offer on the second point. I’ve been enjoying the clarity and patience of SuStel’s replies, which deserve actual appreciative comment rather than implied agreement through silence. charghwI’ vaghnerya’ngan rInpa’ bomnIS be’’a’ pI’.
participants (4)
-
Lieven L. Litaer -
mayqel qunen'oS -
SuStel -
Will Martin