Multiple question words / markers in a sentence
I don’t remember the exact sentence, but some time ago somebody said something of the form “SoHvaD jatlh'a' 'Iv?”, which at first I thought was a mistake, until it was explained as a clarifying question on top of another question. The first question would have been something of the form “jIHvaD Dajatlh'a'?”, with the follow up question of “SoHvaD jatlh'a' 'Iv?” basically asking who the first question was being asked to. Within this context, this made sense, despite apparently being ungrammatical at first glance. This form came up in a separate conversation recently, in a sentence that I believe was “HIq 'ar Datlhutlh'a'?” In this instance the -'a' did turn out to be an error, but I was able to concoct a contrived scenario where the question might make sense, as a clarifying follow up question to something like “cha' tlho'ren muqbogh HIq bal naQ vItlhutlh'a'?” Anyway, more generally, does it make sense to have questions with more than one question word, like it does in English? Either something like the examples above, where a verb carries an interrogative marker in addition to a question word being present, or like one of the examples below: ghorgh mej 'Iv? (perhaps, like the previous examples, as a follow up question to something like “ghorgh mej?”) nuq legh 'Iv? (perhaps asking for two separate pieces of information at once)
jIqawchu’chugh: QIjpu’ qurgh’e’. Sent from my iPhone
On Feb 17, 2019, at 14:40, mayqel qunenoS <mihkoun@gmail.com> wrote:
Daniel Dadap:
which at first I thought was a mistake, until it was explained as a clarifying question on top of another question
Was it explained by someone whose opinion actually matters ?
~ mayqel qunen'oS _______________________________________________ tlhIngan-Hol mailing list tlhIngan-Hol@lists.kli.org http://lists.kli.org/listinfo.cgi/tlhingan-hol-kli.org
I believe that it is a mistake to use a question word and the verb suffix {-‘a’} in the same sentence. The explanation of it as a follow up question doesn’t cut it for me. In {SoHvaD jatlh’a’ ‘IV?} how could you answer that question? Would it be a person’s name, or yes/no? You don’t combine the two questions into one sentence. There is no grammatical justification for it, and it makes no sense. It’s like combining “Is he going somewhere?” And “Who is going somewhere?” to get “Is who going somewhere?” Make up your mind which question you are asking and ask it. If you have two questions, ask both of them. Don’t expect one sentence to carry too much meaning. Sent from my iPad
On Feb 17, 2019, at 2:07 PM, Daniel Dadap <daniel@dadap.net> wrote:
I don’t remember the exact sentence, but some time ago somebody said something of the form “SoHvaD jatlh'a' 'Iv?”, which at first I thought was a mistake, until it was explained as a clarifying question on top of another question. The first question would have been something of the form “jIHvaD Dajatlh'a'?”, with the follow up question of “SoHvaD jatlh'a' 'Iv?” basically asking who the first question was being asked to. Within this context, this made sense, despite apparently being ungrammatical at first glance.
This form came up in a separate conversation recently, in a sentence that I believe was “HIq 'ar Datlhutlh'a'?” In this instance the -'a' did turn out to be an error, but I was able to concoct a contrived scenario where the question might make sense, as a clarifying follow up question to something like “cha' tlho'ren muqbogh HIq bal naQ vItlhutlh'a'?”
Anyway, more generally, does it make sense to have questions with more than one question word, like it does in English? Either something like the examples above, where a verb carries an interrogative marker in addition to a question word being present, or like one of the examples below:
ghorgh mej 'Iv? (perhaps, like the previous examples, as a follow up question to something like “ghorgh mej?”) nuq legh 'Iv? (perhaps asking for two separate pieces of information at once) _______________________________________________ tlhIngan-Hol mailing list tlhIngan-Hol@lists.kli.org http://lists.kli.org/listinfo.cgi/tlhingan-hol-kli.org
I respectfully disagree. I was on the periphery of the conversation de’nIl referenced, and it made sense in context, given the sequence of events. Someone asked a yes/no question, the person they were asking the question to was ambiguous, so someone else asked a clarifying question. Example: 1: bISaH’a’ — are you here? 2: SaH’a’ ‘Iv? — is who here? From context, it’s distinguishable what’s being asked in what sequence. Perhaps {‘IvvaD Daghel?} might have been a more technically accurate response, but the double question seems just as cogent in Klingon as in English. —jevreH Sent from my iPhone
On Feb 17, 2019, at 14:49, Will Martin <willmartin2@mac.com> wrote:
I believe that it is a mistake to use a question word and the verb suffix {-‘a’} in the same sentence. The explanation of it as a follow up question doesn’t cut it for me. In {SoHvaD jatlh’a’ ‘IV?} how could you answer that question? Would it be a person’s name, or yes/no? You don’t combine the two questions into one sentence. There is no grammatical justification for it, and it makes no sense.
It’s like combining “Is he going somewhere?” And “Who is going somewhere?” to get “Is who going somewhere?” Make up your mind which question you are asking and ask it. If you have two questions, ask both of them. Don’t expect one sentence to carry too much meaning.
Sent from my iPad
On Feb 17, 2019, at 2:07 PM, Daniel Dadap <daniel@dadap.net> wrote:
I don’t remember the exact sentence, but some time ago somebody said something of the form “SoHvaD jatlh'a' 'Iv?”, which at first I thought was a mistake, until it was explained as a clarifying question on top of another question. The first question would have been something of the form “jIHvaD Dajatlh'a'?”, with the follow up question of “SoHvaD jatlh'a' 'Iv?” basically asking who the first question was being asked to. Within this context, this made sense, despite apparently being ungrammatical at first glance.
This form came up in a separate conversation recently, in a sentence that I believe was “HIq 'ar Datlhutlh'a'?” In this instance the -'a' did turn out to be an error, but I was able to concoct a contrived scenario where the question might make sense, as a clarifying follow up question to something like “cha' tlho'ren muqbogh HIq bal naQ vItlhutlh'a'?”
Anyway, more generally, does it make sense to have questions with more than one question word, like it does in English? Either something like the examples above, where a verb carries an interrogative marker in addition to a question word being present, or like one of the examples below:
ghorgh mej 'Iv? (perhaps, like the previous examples, as a follow up question to something like “ghorgh mej?”) nuq legh 'Iv? (perhaps asking for two separate pieces of information at once) _______________________________________________ tlhIngan-Hol mailing list tlhIngan-Hol@lists.kli.org http://lists.kli.org/listinfo.cgi/tlhingan-hol-kli.org
_______________________________________________ tlhIngan-Hol mailing list tlhIngan-Hol@lists.kli.org http://lists.kli.org/listinfo.cgi/tlhingan-hol-kli.org
On Sun, 17 Feb 2019 at 21:26, Daniel Dadap <daniel@dadap.net> wrote:
On Feb 17, 2019, at 14:23, Jeffrey Clark <jmclark85@gmail.com> wrote:
1: bISaH’a’ — are you here? 2: SaH’a’ ‘Iv? — is who here?
Ah, thanks for helping me remember. I believe bISaH'a'? / SaH'a' 'Iv? was precisely how the conversation went.
This is a double-question where the expected answer is still a question. That is, the *real* question word in {SaH'a' 'Iv} in context is {'Iv}. There's no confusion about whether you're supposed to answer a "yes/no" question, or a "who" question, because the context determines that the asker is trying to clarify to whom the first question was asked. The {-'a'} is actually expected to be part of the answer and so isn't really serving as a question word here. As for something like {nuq legh 'Iv}, asking for two pieces of information simultaneously, I don't see why not. For example, if Horatio is related excitedly to Hamlet how Marcellus and Bernardo saw his father the king's ghost, Hamlet may very well excitedly ask {nuq legh 'Iv jay'?!} I can't say whether Klingon grammarians would approve of either, but both seem like the sort of thing that might happen naturally in conversation and be understood, proper grammar be damned. -- De'vID
“It don’t make me no never mind.” How many times has that been uttered? Everybody understands it. It does a perfect job of conveying meaning, but few would argue that it is grammatically correct. If I witnessed the conversation you describe, it wouldn’t make me no never mind. I wouldn’t correct anyone. That’s not the same thing as suggesting that it is grammatically correct. When someone made HoD Qanqor a little Jewish hat (I don’t know how to spell “yah-mi-ka”) with a Klingon emblem on it, he laughed and put it on and yelled, {jIyID! jIyID!} and even though that verb did not exist in the vocabulary, everybody in the room knew exactly what he was saying. But he didn’t subsequently come to this list and insist to everybody that this was proper Klingon speech, which is kind of what you are doing. Add that the whole reason this sentence you suggest makes sense to you is that you speak a language that has a grammatical structure for indirect quotations. So far as we know, Klingon doesn’t. Klingon has direct quotation, with the grammar laid out for us, and even though Okrand has been asked about indirect quotation, back in the day, he consistently demurred. Perhaps he has addressed this topic in my absence? You have encoded an indirect quote from English into a Klingon sentence. It’s not a translation. It’s encoding. Any English speaker might be able to figure out what you are saying, but would a Klingon understand it? I doubt it. {nuq legh ‘Iv} makes more sense. You are asking for two different bits of information in one sentence. Two question words would be replaced by the answer words. But when you combine the yes/no question with the question word question, you are just being grammatically weird and coming up with a story to explain it, apparently expecting the rest of us to approve of this and pretend that it’s a useful grammatical thing to know for the future as we make up future sentences. I think you have gone a bridge too far on this one. charghwI’ vaghnerya’ngan rInpa’ bomnIS be’’a’ pI’.
On Feb 18, 2019, at 1:56 AM, De'vID <de.vid.jonpin@gmail.com> wrote:
On Sun, 17 Feb 2019 at 21:26, Daniel Dadap <daniel@dadap.net <mailto:daniel@dadap.net>> wrote:
On Feb 17, 2019, at 14:23, Jeffrey Clark <jmclark85@gmail.com <mailto:jmclark85@gmail.com>> wrote:
1: bISaH’a’ — are you here? 2: SaH’a’ ‘Iv? — is who here?
Ah, thanks for helping me remember. I believe bISaH'a'? / SaH'a' 'Iv? was precisely how the conversation went.
This is a double-question where the expected answer is still a question. That is, the *real* question word in {SaH'a' 'Iv} in context is {'Iv}. There's no confusion about whether you're supposed to answer a "yes/no" question, or a "who" question, because the context determines that the asker is trying to clarify to whom the first question was asked. The {-'a'} is actually expected to be part of the answer and so isn't really serving as a question word here.
As for something like {nuq legh 'Iv}, asking for two pieces of information simultaneously, I don't see why not. For example, if Horatio is related excitedly to Hamlet how Marcellus and Bernardo saw his father the king's ghost, Hamlet may very well excitedly ask {nuq legh 'Iv jay'?!}
I can't say whether Klingon grammarians would approve of either, but both seem like the sort of thing that might happen naturally in conversation and be understood, proper grammar be damned.
-- De'vID _______________________________________________ tlhIngan-Hol mailing list tlhIngan-Hol@lists.kli.org http://lists.kli.org/listinfo.cgi/tlhingan-hol-kli.org
ja' charghwI':
But when you combine the yes/no question with the question word question, you are just being grammatically weird and coming up with a story to explain it, apparently expecting the rest of us to approve of this and pretend that it’s a useful grammatical thing to know for the future as we make up future sentences.
I agree with that. Even though it may sound "logical" in that sentence, I doubt it's grammatically correct to have a {legh'a' 'Iv}. The -'a' suffix indicates a yes/no question while the 'Iv requires an answer. In such a situation, I can see Captain Kirk talking to the M-5 computer who destroys himself not knowing what to answer to such a question. {legh'a' 'Iv?} - {HIja'!!} When giving the English example it's also not a yes/no question any more: Does he see it? -> Who does see it? and not "Does who see it?" -- Lieven L. Litaer aka the "Klingon Teacher from Germany" http://www.klingonisch.de http://www.klingonwiki.net/En/Questions
I will argue that “It don’t make no never mind” is grammatically correct. Different dialects have their own rules of grammar, and the dialect in which “It don’t make no never mind” exists will allow it as perfectly grammatical. You couldn’t fiddle with its grammar and still have it accepted. For instance, you couldn’t change it to “It don’t make any never mind,” or people who speak that dialect would instantly recognize you as an outsider. This is not an example of ungrammaticality; it’s an example of speakers of a “standard” dialect looking down on speakers of a “regional” dialect. -- SuStel http://trimboli.name From: Will Martin Sent: Monday, February 18, 2019 8:10 AM To: tlhingan-hol@kli.org Subject: Re: [tlhIngan Hol] Multiple question words / markers in a sentence “It don’t make me no never mind.” How many times has that been uttered? Everybody understands it. It does a perfect job of conveying meaning, but few would argue that it is grammatically correct.
I will argue that “It don’t make no never mind” is grammatically correct. Different dialects have their own rules of grammar, and the dialect in which “It don’t make no never mind” exists will allow it as perfectly grammatical. You couldn’t fiddle with its grammar and still have it accepted. For instance, you couldn’t change it to “It don’t make any never mind,” or people who speak that dialect would instantly recognize you as an outsider. This is not an example of ungrammaticality; it’s an example of speakers of a “standard” dialect looking down on speakers of a “regional” dialect. -- SuStel http://trimboli.name From: Will Martin Sent: Monday, February 18, 2019 8:10 AM To: tlhingan-hol@kli.org Subject: Re: [tlhIngan Hol] Multiple question words / markers in a sentence “It don’t make me no never mind.” How many times has that been uttered? Everybody understands it. It does a perfect job of conveying meaning, but few would argue that it is grammatically correct.
On Feb 18, 2019, at 07:10, Will Martin <willmartin2@mac.com> wrote:
But when you combine the yes/no question with the question word question, you are just being grammatically weird and coming up with a story to explain it, apparently expecting the rest of us to approve of this and pretend that it’s a useful grammatical thing to know for the future as we make up future sentences.
I don’t believe anybody was asking for approval or claiming that this is a useful construction that people should go forth and use. I was just calling to attention a construction which at first glance seemed nonsensical, but when reanalyzed within the context of the conversation (I was an observer to the conversation itself when it occurred, so at first glance failed to grasp the context), does seem like a reasonable thing to have formed extemporaneously.
You have encoded an indirect quote from English into a Klingon sentence. It’s not a translation. It’s encoding. Any English speaker might be able to figure out what you are saying, but would a Klingon understand it? I doubt it.
Just because something looks like encoded English doesn’t mean that it is. The prefix trick resembles indirect objects in English, and if one were to rely only on the grammar in TKD, one might balk at a sentence like “'etlhlIj HInob” and say that’s obviously just encoded English, and the right way to say it is “jIHvaD 'etlhlIj yInob.” (It’s entirely possible that the prefix trick originated as accidentally encoded English, but that’s beside the point.) Nobody was translating anything in the conversation where “SaH'a' 'Iv” emerged; it was a conversation occurring in Klingon between Klingon speakers. It’s possible that the thought process that led to “SaH'a' 'Iv” might have been influenced by English, but it needn’t have been. Would a Klingon say or understand something like “SaH'a' 'Iv” in response to something like “bISaH'a'”? Maybe. Maybe not. We don’t know. We can’t ask any Klingons to check. When Klaa asks “'entepray''a'?” as a question in Star Trek V, it doesn’t follow any known rules of grammar, and no rules to explain it have been revealed in the 30 or so years since then. Would an English speaker understand it? Certainly. Would a Klingon understand it? Presumably, since a Klingon spoke it. Should we feel free to use -'a' as an interrogative marker on a noun because Okrand did so one time three decades ago? I would think not, but I wouldn’t mind if other people do it, as long as they know they’re not following any known rules of grammar when they do so. Our understanding of the language is far from complete, and constantly evolving. What’s going on in “waq vItuQ, DaS 'e' qa'”? You can’t use 'e' with a noun! Well, you still can’t, but in this case, you aren’t really doing that since it’s a fixed expression. “tugh puqwI' woch law' jIH woch rap.” Huh? You have to use law' and puS in a comparative; what’s the rap doing there? We don’t know what we don’t know, which is why we ask each other questions like “does it make sense to use multiple question words or markers in the same sentence”. There aren’t any rules that say you can’t do so, AFAIK. Does that mean I’m going to start doing it just because no rule says I can’t? No. I’m aware that it’s weird. I think we’re all aware that it’s weird. Let’s not be afraid to explore the weirdness together.
Before Okrand revealed the prefix trick to us, {‘etlhlIj HInob} would have, indeed, been ungrammatical Klingon, encoded English. It would have not made sense in the Klingon language. But Okrand DID reveal the prefix trick to us, and because of that {‘etlhlIj HInob} is perfectly grammatical in Klingon. If he ever reveals to us how indirect quotation works in Klingon, the same will be true of your double-question, assuming that your version of how the grammar works matches whatever he comes up with. Before we knew how to use direct quotations, we had no grammar for it, and likely had we guessed, we would not have come up with what Okrand revealed to us, so earlier guesses would almost certainly be wrong. And yes, we spent years working with the language before we had any hint as to the grammar of how to make direct quotations. We’re working in a language where we don’t get to make up our own grammar. We don’t get to conclude what undefined grammar would look like were we to go where Okrand hasn’t gone yet. You have an interesting story worth telling. People understood what was intended, but that doesn’t make it grammatical. I responded to the question as to whether or not it was grammatical. I said it wasn’t, and all the argument that has followed comes back to that point. I still don’t think it’s grammatical, and I doubt that I stand alone with this opinion. It doesn’t go any farther than that. It’s like there’s an effort to come back with a last word to say that, “Yeah, I know it’s not quite grammatical, but it’s still okay, and almost grammatical in a special situation, right?” If your concern is whether or not it is grammatical, then I’m unmoved in believing that it is not. If you have some other point to make besides whether or not it is grammatical, then we’d go back and forth less if you didn’t include any suggesting that it sort of kind of is almost grammatical, right? charghwI’ vaghnerya’ngan rInpa’ bomnIS be’’a’ pI’.
On Feb 18, 2019, at 10:04 AM, Daniel Dadap <daniel@dadap.net> wrote:
You have encoded an indirect quote from English into a Klingon sentence. It’s not a translation. It’s encoding. Any English speaker might be able to figure out what you are saying, but would a Klingon understand it? I doubt it.
Just because something looks like encoded English doesn’t mean that it is. The prefix trick resembles indirect objects in English, and if one were to rely only on the grammar in TKD, one might balk at a sentence like “'etlhlIj HInob” and say that’s obviously just encoded English, and the right way to say it is “jIHvaD 'etlhlIj yInob.” (It’s entirely possible that the prefix trick originated as accidentally encoded English, but that’s beside the point.) Nobody was translating anything in the conversation where “SaH'a' 'Iv” emerged; it was a conversation occurring in Klingon between Klingon speakers. It’s possible that the thought process that led to “SaH'a' 'Iv” might have been influenced by English, but it needn’t have been.
Sent from my iPhone
On Feb 18, 2019, at 12:27, Will Martin <willmartin2@mac.com> wrote:
If your concern is whether or not it is grammatical, then I’m unmoved in believing that it is not. If you have some other point to make besides whether or not it is grammatical, then we’d go back and forth less if you didn’t include any suggesting that it sort of kind of is almost grammatical, right?
So the grammatically correct response according to the rules of the language as currently revealed would have been {‘Iv Daghel?}? Instead of: bISaH’a’ SaH’a’ ‘Iv Thus: bISaH’a’ ‘Iv Daghel —jevreH
HIja’! Yes. Oui! Ja! Sí! (Fist nodding up and down in ASL, followed by dominant hand fist with index finger pointing forward plopping on top of left hand fist with index finger pointing forward, while nodding head). If you wanted to do it with direct quotes, you probably could say any of the following: <<bISaH’a’?>> bIjatlh. ‘Iv Daghel? ‘Iv Daghel? bIjatlh. <<bISaH’a’?>> bIjatlh. <<bISaH’a’?>> ‘Iv Daghel? ‘Iv Daghel? <<bISaH’a’?>> bIjatlh. The important grammatical point is that these are three independently grammatical, whole sentences. There are no dependent clauses. No sentence is grammatically linked to any other sentence. There’s a sentence with {jatlh} adjacent to the direct quotation. Slightly more controversially, you could probably say either of the following: <<bISaH’a’?>> ‘Iv Daghel. ‘Iv Daghel <<bISaH’a’?>> It comes down to whether or not {ghel} can be used as the verb of speech referring to the quotation. At one point, Okrand said that we could only be sure that {jatlh} was correct for this, and we know that {jatlh} is always acceptable for this, even for questions. I believe that later on, he loosened up a bit and gave a short list of other words that can be used in the {jatlh} role of direct quotations. I’m sure that someone else remembers the details of this better than I do. charghwI’ vaghnerya’ngan rInpa’ bomnIS be’’a’ pI’.
On Feb 18, 2019, at 12:37 PM, Jeffrey Clark <jmclark85@gmail.com> wrote:
Sent from my iPhone
On Feb 18, 2019, at 12:27, Will Martin <willmartin2@mac.com> wrote:
If your concern is whether or not it is grammatical, then I’m unmoved in believing that it is not. If you have some other point to make besides whether or not it is grammatical, then we’d go back and forth less if you didn’t include any suggesting that it sort of kind of is almost grammatical, right?
So the grammatically correct response according to the rules of the language as currently revealed would have been {‘Iv Daghel?}?
Instead of: bISaH’a’ SaH’a’ ‘Iv
Thus: bISaH’a’ ‘Iv Daghel
—jevreH _______________________________________________ tlhIngan-Hol mailing list tlhIngan-Hol@lists.kli.org http://lists.kli.org/listinfo.cgi/tlhingan-hol-kli.org
On 2/18/2019 1:00 PM, Will Martin wrote:
It comes down to whether or not {ghel} can be used as the verb of speech referring to the quotation. At one point, Okrand said that we could only be sure that {jatlh} was correct for this, and we know that {jatlh} is always acceptable for this, even for questions. I believe that later on, he loosened up a bit and gave a short list of other words that can be used in the {jatlh} role of direct quotations.
The known verbs of speech are *jatlh* and *ja'.* -- SuStel http://trimboli.name
On 2/18/2019 12:27 PM, Will Martin wrote:
Before Okrand revealed the prefix trick to us, {‘etlhlIj HInob} would have, indeed, been ungrammatical Klingon, encoded English. It would have not made sense in the Klingon language.
But Okrand DID reveal the prefix trick to us, and because of that {‘etlhlIj HInob} is perfectly grammatical in Klingon.
If he ever reveals to us how indirect quotation works in Klingon, the same will be true of your double-question, assuming that your version of how the grammar works matches whatever he comes up with. Before we knew how to use direct quotations, we had no grammar for it, and likely had we guessed, we would not have come up with what Okrand revealed to us, so earlier guesses would almost certainly be wrong. And yes, we spent years working with the language before we had any hint as to the grammar of how to make direct quotations.
We know perfectly well how "direct quotations" and "indirect quotations" work in Klingon: everything is a report of the actual speech, or else doesn't use a verb of speech. *qaja'pu' HIqaghQo'* /I told you not to interrupt me. /(TKD) // Literally it's /I told you, "Don't interrupt me!"/ but it's also used in situations where in English one wouldn't quote someone else's exact words. If it's not a verb of speech, then it's something like this: *qaqaghbe'pu' 'e' Datlhob*/You requested that I not interrupt you./ Here, I'm not reporting your speech. "Direct quotations" are explained in TKD; we did not spend years before he had a hint of how to use them. -- SuStel http://trimboli.name
We know perfectly well how "direct quotations" and "indirect quotations" work in Klingon: everything is a report of the actual speech, or else doesn't use a verb of speech.
qaja'pu' HIqaghQo' I told you not to interrupt me. (TKD)
Not contradicting this, but it's worth noting that there is at least one canonical instance where jatlh has been used to express an indirect quotation: Those unfit disintegrate At the glance of Fek'lhr, So it is said nuv 'umHa' leghchugh veqlargh ngoS nuv 'umHa' net jatlh (paq'batlh, paq'raD, Canto 1, Stanza 2) It's from paq'batlh, which we know contains some dubious grammar, but it does seem a rather natural (and useful) expansion of the types of object that jatlh can take; we've long known that jatlh can take a SoQ (http://klingonska.org/canon/1997-06-29b-news.txt) as an object, and paq'batlh uses mu' and lut as the objects of jatlh several times. As such, it doesn't seem like a huge leap that you could also let a statement (marked by 'e' or net) be the object of jatlh. That being said, the vast majority of quotations we have are direct, which does suggest that those may be the most natural-sounding. This may be another aspect of the "Klingons are often inaccurate, but they are never[ish] approximate." guideline that caused quite a bit of debate recently; quotes are commonly given as though they are being given verbatim, but whether or not they actually are is another matter. //loghaD ________________________________ From: tlhIngan-Hol <tlhingan-hol-bounces@lists.kli.org> on behalf of SuStel <sustel@trimboli.name> Sent: Monday, February 18, 2019 20:15 To: tlhingan-hol@lists.kli.org Subject: Re: [tlhIngan Hol] Multiple question words / markers in a sentence On 2/18/2019 12:27 PM, Will Martin wrote: Before Okrand revealed the prefix trick to us, {'etlhlIj HInob} would have, indeed, been ungrammatical Klingon, encoded English. It would have not made sense in the Klingon language. But Okrand DID reveal the prefix trick to us, and because of that {'etlhlIj HInob} is perfectly grammatical in Klingon. If he ever reveals to us how indirect quotation works in Klingon, the same will be true of your double-question, assuming that your version of how the grammar works matches whatever he comes up with. Before we knew how to use direct quotations, we had no grammar for it, and likely had we guessed, we would not have come up with what Okrand revealed to us, so earlier guesses would almost certainly be wrong. And yes, we spent years working with the language before we had any hint as to the grammar of how to make direct quotations. We know perfectly well how "direct quotations" and "indirect quotations" work in Klingon: everything is a report of the actual speech, or else doesn't use a verb of speech. qaja'pu' HIqaghQo' I told you not to interrupt me. (TKD) Literally it's I told you, "Don't interrupt me!" but it's also used in situations where in English one wouldn't quote someone else's exact words. If it's not a verb of speech, then it's something like this: qaqaghbe'pu' 'e' Datlhob You requested that I not interrupt you. Here, I'm not reporting your speech. "Direct quotations" are explained in TKD; we did not spend years before he had a hint of how to use them. -- SuStel http://trimboli.name
I don’t think your example represents indirect quotation. I should clarify what I think is the difference between direct and indirect quotation. In English: Direct quotation: Jack said, “You should not go in there.” Indirect quotation: Jack said that I should not go in there. In English, punctuation makes the difference obvious when written, but it’s also obvious when spoken because the person of the subject of the verb being quoted changes. Literally, Jack said the word “You”, but the person he’s talking about is “me”, so when I paraphrase him in an indirect quotation, I change the subject to “I”. Klingon doesn’t have punctuation, so if the person of the subject of the verb being quoted doesn’t change, there is no signal as to whether or not this is a direct quote (a.k.a. “reported speech”) or if it is an indirect quotation (paraphrased). The indirect quotation conveys the meaning of the quotation, but it doesn’t give you the exact wording. In the case you point out, even though the object of {jatlh} is {net}, that doesn’t mean that the quotation isn’t an exact replica of what was said. There is no evidence that it is paraphrased. Some here have objected to my use of “direct quotation” and “indirect quotation”, saying the Klingon does both, but it only uses “reported speech”. I think this is somewhat confused by Okrand’s accurate, but grammatically loose translations in English. He intentionally shifts grammatical form in many of his translations, both because they make better translations in terms of conveying the same meaning in the two different languages, but also, I think, to make the point that he is not replacing English words with Klingon words, and arranging them according to parallel grammar between the two languages. He is translating, which is a more complex process. In any case, you can convey “reported speech” in Klingon with English translations that are either “direct quotations” or “indirect quotations” in English, but I honestly think that all “reported speech” is “direct quotation” because Klingon doesn’t paraphrase when it reports speech. It gives you, verbatim, the words you are reporting as coming out of the other person’s mouth. That’s a direct quote. It’s not an indirect quote. Since we know that {jatlh} can take a direct object, and we know that “reported speech” is grammatically independent of the sentence reporting the speech (with {jatlh} or {ja’}), there is nothing in your example to suggest that this isn’t normal reported speech, except for the modern convention that {net} represents the previous sentence, grammatically linking the two sentences. Likely, you are interpreting this as indirect quotation for two reasons: 1. In English, we use “that” in indirect quotations. “Jack said that I should not go in there.” The same word, “that”, is used to translate {net}, but the presence of the pronoun does not establish that it has the same grammatical function in Klingon that it has in English. 2. In English, if the subject of the quoted verb is third person, then there is no change in pronoun for the subject in either direct or indirect quotation. DQ: Jack said, “Fred (he) should not go in there.” IQ: Jack said that Fred (he) should not go in there. Meanwhile, I don’t think the word “that” is what really distinguishes indirect from direct quotations in English. It’s that shift in person, establishing that the reported speech is paraphrased, and not an exact representation of the words uttered by the person being quoted. This is the English grammar that has no Klingon equivalent. Klingons never paraphrase reported speech. It’s one of those areas where Klingons may be inaccurate, but they are never approximate. They may misquote you, but they will never paraphrase you. ASL has a similar method of handling quotations, and while I’m sure it’s not appropriate to drag ASL into every Klingon grammatical argument, I’m also sure that as a linguist whose day job was managing the captioning of live TV broadcasts, Okrand is probably quite familiar with ASL and its beautiful differences from most spoken languages. Likely, some of these differences are useful to someone seeking to make a language unlike most human spoken languages, just as Native American languages have served as models for the grammar for Klingon comparatives. In ASL, quotation usually takes the form of role-playing where you sign to indicate a person and point to a place, then slide into that place and sign exactly what that person said. This is remarkably similar to the Klingon quotation grammar, where you say that a person is talking and then you say what they said (or you say what a person said, and then clarify that a specific other person is talking). In ASL, the part about the person talking always comes first, consistent with the ASL tendency to state the “topic” first so that the context is set for the rest of the sentence. Instead of signing, “This afternoon, I go to the store,” most ASL speakers would sign “The STORE, this afternoon, I go,” emphasizing the topic with raised eyebrows and head tilted forward. With the store as the topic, the preposition becomes unnecessary, and it’s really less important. If you know that the context is the store, and I’m going, the emphasis is on my being at the store this afternoon, more than the direction I’m traveling while I’m going. It’s a different way of thinking. ASL doesn’t use prepositions very often as separate words, since so much of signing implies directionality. So, a marker for topic, applied to a noun at the beginning of a sentence… Hmmm. Where else have I seen that?... There are several possible explanations for your example's exception to the normal grammar of reported speech: 1. This is poetic writing. {tlhonmey} could be grammatically correct in this setting. We can’t get too attached to the way things are written in poetry. 2. This is ancient writing. It could be that the modern representation of reported speech had not been codified yet. This could be an example of an earlier form that fell out of common use. 3. Again, as ancient writing, it could be that the “indefinite subject” function of {net} preceded the “SAO” function of {net}. Does this canon work include much use of {-lu’}? It’s possible that {net} was used in lieu of {-lu’}, and that a modern version of this line would be {nuv ‘umHa’ leghchugh veqlargh. jatlhlu’.} 4. {net jatlh} looks a lot like {net Sov}. This could be a fossilized form that, like {tu'lu’} is kept whole and unmodified even when it violates normal grammar. We often see {tu’lu’} where {lutu’lu’} is grammatically appropriate. Yes, I am stretching the point. The primary point here is that since the reported speech is not likely paraphrased, this is not a canon example of indirect quotation. charghwI’ vaghnerya’ngan rInpa’ bomnIS be’’a’ pI’.
On Feb 19, 2019, at 8:01 AM, Felix Malmenbeck <felixm@kth.se> wrote:
We know perfectly well how "direct quotations" and "indirect quotations" work in Klingon: everything is a report of the actual speech, or else doesn't use a verb of speech.
qaja'pu' HIqaghQo' I told you not to interrupt me. (TKD) Not contradicting this, but it's worth noting that there is at least one canonical instance where jatlh has been used to express an indirect quotation:
Those unfit disintegrate At the glance of Fek’lhr, So it is said
nuv ‘umHa’ leghchugh veqlargh ngoS nuv ‘umHa’ net jatlh
(paq'batlh, paq'raD, Canto 1, Stanza 2)
It's from paq'batlh, which we know contains some dubious grammar, but it does seem a rather natural (and useful) expansion of the types of object that jatlh can take; we've long known that jatlh can take a SoQ (http://klingonska.org/canon/1997-06-29b-news.txt <http://klingonska.org/canon/1997-06-29b-news.txt>) as an object, and paq'batlh uses mu' and lut as the objects of jatlh several times. As such, it doesn't seem like a huge leap that you could also let a statement (marked by 'e' or net) be the object of jatlh.
That being said, the vast majority of quotations we have are direct, which does suggest that those may be the most natural-sounding. This may be another aspect of the "Klingons are often inaccurate, but they are never[ish] approximate." guideline that caused quite a bit of debate recently; quotes are commonly given as though they are being given verbatim, but whether or not they actually are is another matter.
//loghaD
From: tlhIngan-Hol <tlhingan-hol-bounces@lists.kli.org> on behalf of SuStel <sustel@trimboli.name> Sent: Monday, February 18, 2019 20:15 To: tlhingan-hol@lists.kli.org Subject: Re: [tlhIngan Hol] Multiple question words / markers in a sentence
On 2/18/2019 12:27 PM, Will Martin wrote:
Before Okrand revealed the prefix trick to us, {‘etlhlIj HInob} would have, indeed, been ungrammatical Klingon, encoded English. It would have not made sense in the Klingon language.
But Okrand DID reveal the prefix trick to us, and because of that {‘etlhlIj HInob} is perfectly grammatical in Klingon.
If he ever reveals to us how indirect quotation works in Klingon, the same will be true of your double-question, assuming that your version of how the grammar works matches whatever he comes up with. Before we knew how to use direct quotations, we had no grammar for it, and likely had we guessed, we would not have come up with what Okrand revealed to us, so earlier guesses would almost certainly be wrong. And yes, we spent years working with the language before we had any hint as to the grammar of how to make direct quotations. We know perfectly well how "direct quotations" and "indirect quotations" work in Klingon: everything is a report of the actual speech, or else doesn't use a verb of speech. qaja'pu' HIqaghQo' I told you not to interrupt me. (TKD) Literally it's I told you, "Don't interrupt me!" but it's also used in situations where in English one wouldn't quote someone else's exact words. If it's not a verb of speech, then it's something like this: qaqaghbe'pu' 'e' Datlhob You requested that I not interrupt you. Here, I'm not reporting your speech. "Direct quotations" are explained in TKD; we did not spend years before he had a hint of how to use them. -- SuStel http://trimboli.name <http://trimboli.name/>_______________________________________________ tlhIngan-Hol mailing list tlhIngan-Hol@lists.kli.org http://lists.kli.org/listinfo.cgi/tlhingan-hol-kli.org
On Feb 18, 2019, at 11:27, Will Martin <willmartin2@mac.com> wrote:
We’re working in a language where we don’t get to make up our own grammar. We don’t get to conclude what undefined grammar would look like were we to go where Okrand hasn’t gone yet.
As we say in Klingon, “I don’t disagree.”
You have an interesting story worth telling. People understood what was intended, but that doesn’t make it grammatical. I responded to the question as to whether or not it was grammatical. I said it wasn’t, and all the argument that has followed comes back to that point. I still don’t think it’s grammatical, and I doubt that I stand alone with this opinion.
I never asked whether it was grammatical. I asked if it made sense. Your opinion on that seems clear. I’ve not made the claim that it’s grammatical any more than HoD Qanqor claims that {yID} is a verb meaning “be Jewish”, nor do I think anybody else has made this claim. I’m not trying to convince you or anybody else otherwise, and I would go so far as to say that at least some of the people who chimed in and said the construction makes sense (which is all I was really asking about) probably share your opinion that it is ungrammatical. My own opinion on “SaH'a' 'Iv” is that it does not follow any known rules of grammar. It also doesn’t explicitly violate any known rules of grammar. No more, no less. I won’t pretend to know whether it’s grammatical or not. You are probably right that it isn’t, but I think that claiming that something is ungrammatical because it doesn’t follow any known rules of grammar is jumping to just as much of a conclusion as claiming it is grammatical because it doesn’t violate any known rules of grammar.
If your concern is whether or not it is grammatical, then I’m unmoved in believing that it is not. If you have some other point to make besides whether or not it is grammatical, then we’d go back and forth less if you didn’t include any suggesting that it sort of kind of is almost grammatical, right?
I’m not making any such suggestion. I don’t think we actually disagree on this as much as your response seems to indicate, which is why I find myself perplexed by this exchange. I never had a point to make. I was asking if people thought that the construction, asking a question where the expected answer is another question, made sense. I went on to further generalize to using multiple question words in a sentence, and provided an example of a different sort where the question was actually two separate simultaneous questions. I believe it’s possible and useful to ask these sorts of question about a construction independently of whether it is grammatical. Questions whose answers or lack of answers exist outside of known grammar are of particular interest to me, because the way people answer them sheds some light into how we each model the language as individuals. I’ve only been seriously studying the language for the past year, so my own mental model of it is still very much plastic, and I enjoy hearing the insights of those who have had decades to form their own mental models. We can extrapolate from the understanding we have each individually formed from the information we have been given, and we will probably extrapolate differently. That’s fine. I’m not asking anybody to do this and claim that the result of such extrapolation is proper Klingon. I just want to participate in the exercise of “I encountered this utterance. It doesn’t follow any known rules of grammar. What does it mean to you? If we interpret it differently, how and why are our interpretations different?” If I produce a phrase in English (or any other language) that doesn’t appear to follow known grammar, it’s still possible for users of that language to talk about what that phrase might mean. Here’s an example of a time I asked a question about an apparently ungrammatical piece of canon (since it’s canon, I asked in a less open-ended way): http://lists.kli.org/pipermail/tlhingan-hol-kli.org/2018-November/009013.htm... I have been trained to think of grammar not as a set of rules for language users to follow, but rather as a set of rules describing how language users use language. To use a comparison you seem fond of (albeit within a different context), the former is true of codes and the latter of languages. Klingon is special in that there actually is an authoritative source for all grammar, but I still think it’s useful to explore the spaces that haven’t yet been pinned down. Not to try to pin those areas down on our own, but just to see the different ways that different people build models of the language based on access to the same information. If you don’t think this is a useful exercise, that’s fine with me, but I still find it an interesting one.
On Feb 18, 2019, at 1:56 AM, De'vID <de.vid.jonpin@gmail.com> wrote:
This is a double-question where the expected answer is still a question. That is, the *real* question word in {SaH'a' 'Iv} in context is {'Iv}. There's no confusion about whether you're supposed to answer a "yes/no" question, or a "who" question, because the context determines that the asker is trying to clarify to whom the first question was asked. The {-'a'} is actually expected to be part of the answer and so isn't really serving as a question word here.
On Feb 18, 2019, at 8:10 AM, Will Martin <willmartin2@mac.com> wrote:
“It don’t make me no never mind.”
How many times has that been uttered? Everybody understands it. It does a perfect job of conveying meaning, but few would argue that it is grammatically correct. If I witnessed the conversation you describe, it wouldn’t make me no never mind. I wouldn’t correct anyone. That’s not the same thing as suggesting that it is grammatically correct.
I think your standard of “grammatically correct” is stricter than most. It is not good *formal* speech, and you won’t find it in something like the AP style guide, but it’s definitely following grammatical rules. (Although those rules might not be as universal as others — while it’s definitely a common phrase, I think it sounds a little off, with “It doesn’t make me any never mind” being what I have heard.)
When someone made HoD Qanqor a little Jewish hat (I don’t know how to spell “yah-mi-ka”)
(It’s “yarmulke”, weirdly enough. Most who wear one would actually call it a “kippah”.)
with a Klingon emblem on it, he laughed and put it on and yelled, {jIyID! jIyID!} and even though that verb did not exist in the vocabulary, everybody in the room knew exactly what he was saying. But he didn’t subsequently come to this list and insist to everybody that this was proper Klingon speech, which is kind of what you are doing.
I wouldn’t equate “inventing” a verb as a joke with the kind of meta-question Daniel is talking about.
Add that the whole reason this sentence you suggest makes sense to you is that you speak a language that has a grammatical structure for indirect quotations. So far as we know, Klingon doesn’t. Klingon has direct quotation, with the grammar laid out for us, and even though Okrand has been asked about indirect quotation, back in the day, he consistently demurred. Perhaps he has addressed this topic in my absence?
How does your “indirect quotation”reference apply to the {bISaH'a'/SaH'a' 'Iv} exchange?
You have encoded an indirect quote from English into a Klingon sentence. It’s not a translation. It’s encoding. Any English speaker might be able to figure out what you are saying, but would a Klingon understand it? I doubt it.
The way I see it, it’s not even a translation. It’s a natural utterance, asking for clarification about a vaguely-addressed question, with the entire short exchange taking place entirely in Klingon and with no other language involved.
{nuq legh ‘Iv} makes more sense. You are asking for two different bits of information in one sentence. Two question words would be replaced by the answer words. But when you combine the yes/no question with the question word question, you are just being grammatically weird and coming up with a story to explain it, apparently expecting the rest of us to approve of this and pretend that it’s a useful grammatical thing to know for the future as we make up future sentences.
The “story” is something that actually happened, and provides context with which to understand *why* the apparent double question came to be said. The subsequent explanations and analyses seem appropriate to me: In the context where this {SaH'a' 'Iv} appeared, only the {'Iv} is expected to be answered, while the {-'a'} “question” will remain in the answer.
I think you have gone a bridge too far on this one.
charghwI’ vaghnerya’ngan
rInpa’ bomnIS be’’a’ pI’.
— ghunchu’wI'
I see {SaH’a’ ‘Iv} as explained as an indirect quotation of {bISaH’a’} wrapped within the question {‘Iv Datlhob?} “Who are you asking if he is here?” It is a sensible question, but it does rely on the concept of indirect quotation, paraphrasing an earlier utterance with the person of the subject of {bISaH} adjusted as it would be adjusted in English in an indirect quotation. The original question was “Are you here?” A direct quotation would be “Who are you asking, ‘Are you here?’? The indirect quotation would be “Who are you asking if he is here?” I don’t think I’m making this up. I think this is how indirect quotations work in English, though this one is a bit twisted, since the outer sentence and the indirect quotation are both questions. Your suggestion that it isn’t an indirect quotation, but instead some sort of encapsulated question seems to be missing the grammatical point here. You are off in some meta-grammatical focus on meaning without recognizing that the mechanism is indeed indirect quotation. I don’t even believe this is my opinion. I think it’s just how the grammar works. I’m sure that several people will likely disagree. Please, before you disagree, just take a moment to think about how indirect quotes work in English. We change the person of the subject doing the thing we are quoting, just like it was done in this double-question. It’s so easy and natural to do in English, you don’t even realize that you are doing it. It just flows, as if it were part of the original pre-verbal idea, when it isn’t. It’s English. And you stuff that into a Klingon sentence and that’s how it comes out, with you very innocently not realizing what you did. Otherwise, why change {bISaH} to {SaH}? charghwI’ vaghnerya’ngan rInpa’ bomnIS be’’a’ pI’.
On Feb 18, 2019, at 10:20 AM, Alan Anderson <qunchuy@alcaco.net> wrote:
How does your “indirect quotation”reference apply to the {bISaH'a'/SaH'a' 'Iv} exchange?
You have encoded an indirect quote from English into a Klingon sentence. It’s not a translation. It’s encoding. Any English speaker might be able to figure out what you are saying, but would a Klingon understand it? I doubt it.
The way I see it, it’s not even a translation. It’s a natural utterance, asking for clarification about a vaguely-addressed question, with the entire short exchange taking place entirely in Klingon and with no other language involved.
{nuq legh ‘Iv} makes more sense. You are asking for two different bits of information in one sentence. Two question words would be replaced by the answer words. But when you combine the yes/no question with the question word question, you are just being grammatically weird and coming up with a story to explain it, apparently expecting the rest of us to approve of this and pretend that it’s a useful grammatical thing to know for the future as we make up future sentences.
The “story” is something that actually happened, and provides context with which to understand *why* the apparent double question came to be said. The subsequent explanations and analyses seem appropriate to me: In the context where this {SaH'a' 'Iv} appeared, only the {'Iv} is expected to be answered, while the {-'a'} “question” will remain in the answer.
I think you have gone a bridge too far on this one.
charghwI’ vaghnerya’ngan
rInpa’ bomnIS be’’a’ pI’.
— ghunchu’wI'
participants (9)
-
Alan Anderson -
Daniel Dadap -
De'vID -
Felix Malmenbeck -
Jeffrey Clark -
Lieven L. Litaer -
mayqel qunenoS -
SuStel -
Will Martin