tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Sat Nov 08 21:23:31 1997
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
Re: Sentence as Object
- From: "WATT FAMILY" <[email protected]>
- Subject: Re: Sentence as Object
- Date: Sun, 9 Nov 1997 15:20:28 +1000
don't send this to me any more [email protected]
----------
> From: David Trimboli <[email protected]>
> To: Multiple recipients of list <[email protected]>
> Subject: RE: Sentence as Object
> Date: Friday, 7 November 1997 0:07
>
> [email protected] on behalf of [email protected] wrote:
> > According to TKD, Sentence As Object is that which {'e'} represents.
TKD
> > does NOT say that the sentence must be a statement, nor that it must
not be
> a
> > question. TKD explicitly states that the "sentence" is the object.
>
> If you apply the rules to any situation without thinking about those
rules,
> you're going to be missing those very important nuances which make life
> interesting.
>
> TKD doesn't mention a lot of things, because (a) it's only an
introductory
> text, and (b) Okrand never could have imagined the Pandora's box he was
> opening when he wrote it. But it's here now, and you can't just cudgel
it
> however you want in the name of the rules. Look at the available
evidence,
> that being the grammar of Klingon which we DO know. Especially the
enormous
> difference of construction between {-bogh} clauses and question words.
> charghwI' has given a beautifully clear explanation of exactly why
questions
> don't work as objects in Klingon, and the ONLY real argument I've heard
> against it, ever, is "But TKD says we can use sentences as objects, and
> questions are sentences, so they can be objects."
>
> But even if you do not choose to stop forcing square pegs through round
holes,
> remember: there are many canonical instances of statements as objects,
there
> are none whatsoever of questions as objects, and Okrand has said he's not
> ready to address the question as object problem. Your QAO is hanging on
by
> the slimmest thread. If you're to save it, give us a *grammatical*
treatment
> of your argument, as charghwI' has done of his.
>
> > We do not need to take just one word of the first sentence and say that
the
> > Klingon pronoun {'e'} does/does not refer to it. {'e'} refers to the
first
> > sentence, in its entirety, no matter what kind of sentence that is.
>
> charghwI' is not choosing this word just to make a point. If you think
about
> the *meaning* of the sentence, the meaning in its *structure*, you'll see
that
> the question words in such a construction are inevitably the true
referent of
> {'e'} and {net}. This is not allowed, because {'e'} refers to a
sentence, not
> one element of a sentence. In {puq qIp 'Iv 'e' luSov}, a question as
object
> construction, you're really saying "They know who," "They know the person
who
> [did it]." They don't know about hitting, and they don't know about the
child
> who was hit, they just know "who." This is a relative pronoun in
English.
> The English relative pronoun "who" is translated with {-bogh} in Klingon.
If
> you stated {puq qIb loD 'e' luSov} "They know that the man hit the
child,"
> they DO know about the man, they DO know about the hitting, and they DO
know
> about the child. They know all about the action that these actors were
> involved in. That is what Sentence as Object is all about.
>
> > That is the beauty. Klingon does not even follow the same thinking
patterns
> > English grammar does.
>
> Right, so stop thinking in an English mode, and get into a Klingon mode.
>
> Speaking of Klingon modes of thought, I've always believed that
rhetorical
> questions are very un-Klingon. Questions as objects can begin to make
some
> sense, at the cost of being entirely rhetorical.
>
> SuStel
> Stardate 97849.6