tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Sat Nov 08 21:23:34 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 15:21:54 +1000
don't send this to [email protected]
----------
> From: Alan Anderson <[email protected]>
> To: Multiple recipients of list <[email protected]>
> Subject: Re: Sentence as Object
> Date: Thursday, 6 November 1997 23:26
>
> ja' peHruS:
> >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.
>
> Good. You accept the basic premise; now we just have to lead you through
> the logic -- again -- which shows that using a pseudogrammatical
"question
> as object" construction is wrong for "I don't know who ate the
chocolate."
>
> >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.
>
> Good. You also accept the strict interpretation of the basic premise.
Why
> can't you then see that it keeps things from working the way you are
trying
> to use them?
>
> "I don't know who ate the chocolate." ** THERE IS NO QUESTION HERE! **
> There is a statement which can be broken down into "I don't know X" where
> X represents "the person who ate the chocolate". The English word "who"
> in this sentence is *not* asking a question. It does *not* carry the
same
> idea as the Klingon word {'Iv}. "Who" here is an English relative
pronoun
> whose meaning is carried in Klingon grammar by the verb suffix {-bogh}.
>
> If you try to use a question to translate this idea, it doesn't work.
> {Sop 'Iv 'e' vISovbe'} tries to say "I don't know that who ate it." You
> agree that {'e'} refers to the entire preceding sentence, right? But the
> idea we're trying to translate wants to refer only to the person who ate.
> In Klingon grammar, that is done by making the person who ate the head
> noun of a relative clause. Using a question as the object of a sentence
> doesn't magically make the second sentence consider only a part of the
> question. Substituting the answer for the question doesn't help, either.
> The idea still wants a single noun as its object, not a complete
statement.
> Using {'e'} is not appropriate; using {-bogh} is.
>
> >That is the beauty. Klingon does not even follow the same thinking
patterns
> >English grammar does. (Grammar is a word you use.)
>
> Yes, Klingon and English grammar are distinct. The fact that English
uses
> the same sequence of letters to spell both a question word and a relative
> pronoun should not confuse you into trying to use Klingon question words
as
> if they were Klingon relative pronouns.
>
> Look at Spanish -- the situation is a *little* easier to distinguish.
The
> question words are spelled with accented vowels; the relative pronouns
are
> not. I don't know enough about other languages to give further examples.
>
> >Okay, we need to follow grammar. I am pointing out that the grammar
rule for
> >Klingon grammarians really has been recorded for us in TKD.
>
> The status of questions as sentences is not an issue. Misusing a
question
> as a noun-qualifying clause is what we're trying to stop.
>
> -- ghunchu'wI'
>