tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Mon Dec 31 10:32:01 2001
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
Re: QAO (was: I had an idea, I don't know how...)
- From: "Sean Healy" <[email protected]>
- Subject: Re: QAO (was: I had an idea, I don't know how...)
- Date: Mon, 31 Dec 2001 06:32:00 -0900
> > It was my understanding that {-bogh} was only the relative pronoun
>'which',
> > and that other relative pronouns aren't discussed.
>
>/-bogh/ is not a relative pronoun. Klingon does not have relative pronouns
>as far as any information we have goes.. /-bogh/ has a function similar to
>an English relative pronoun, and this is an important distinction to make.
>If you insist on analyzing Klingon in terms of other languages instead of
>an
>"Okrandian" context, you'll come up with a lot of unjustified rules.
You're right that it can be misleading to use the term 'relative pronoun'.
But it's a heck of a lot simpler than writing 'suffix that performs a
function similar to a relative pronoun'. I was attempting to analyze
Klingon in terms of universal grammar, a concept that, whil it has its
faults, makes comparative study of grammar easier. (I know that most
linguist no longer accept universal grammar, at least not the way Chomsky
described it, but like negative and imaginary numbers, sometimes a concept
with little or no basis in concrete reality can help us better understand
things that do have such a basis.)
> > As you say below, the
> > issue of whether a question word can act as a relative pronoun is still
> > open.
>
>Not a whole heck of a lot. They're never described as relative pronouns
>and
>they're never used as relative pronouns. Why make them relative pronouns?
>
> > Well, obviously none, as no other type 9 suffix goes on the main verb of
>a
> > sentence. But I didn't say it had to be the first verb.
>
>Huh? The SECOND verb of a Sentence As Object construction is the main
>verb.
>The first verb is the object represented by the pronoun /'e'/.
Yes, but that's the verb I was talking about. The first sentence you quoted
above refers to sentences in general. And the object in an SAO construction
needs to be a sentence, and therefore has a main verb. Perhaps I should
have worded the end of the first sentences as 'the main verb of any
sentence' to make it clearer. The 'main verb' of the object portion of an
SAO construction is the first verb (at least in simple expressions).
> > Perhaps he simply thought it should be intuitive that questions words
>can
> > act as relative pronouns.
>
>Or maybe he thought it should be intuitive that question words cannot act
>as
>relative pronouns. You can see where that sort of argument gets us.
Yes, and that was one of my points - you can either assume that things he
hasn't explicitly okayed are bad, or assume that things he hasn't explicitly
banned are good. Either way, you'll run into problems, either by limiting
what you can say (there is a limit to what circumlocution can accomplish) or
by getting into habits that may later be declared ungrammatical.
>The lack of any such usage by Okrand, and the lack of any such explanation,
>would seem to tip the "there's no rule about it" situation in favor of
>question words not being used as relative pronouns.
From what I've read, the convention of using 'e' to mark the head noun in a
{-bogh} construction was exactly this type of situation - Okrand had never
used it, but people started using it because it was logical. And Okrand
later okayed it, even though the lack of any such prior Okrandian usage
would, according to this logic, have tipped the sacles in favor of it not
being allowed, and {-bogh} constructions only being allowed one noun. So
this is not necessarily a good indication.
> > While it's true that semantically it functions differently, that's only
> > within the context of a conversation. As a standalone utterance, it's
> > simply a sentence. And since the issue at hand was grammaticality, I
>felt
> > it appropriate to consider it out of the context of other sentences
>(i.e.,
> > its use in a conversation).
>
>Grammatically, according to all the rules we know, the following sentence
>is
>allowed:
>
>yaS HoH DujDaq.
>In-the-ship kills the officer.
>
>I dare you to point to a rule that explains why I can't put a Type 5 noun
>suffix on the subject.
>
>You can do some pretty ridiculous things when following the book exactly as
>written.
I would assume that this sentence is grammatically sound but semantically
unacceptable. I used to have a book with similar examples in English -
things that were perfectly acceptable according to rules of grammar, but
made no sense. This sentence is unacceptable because the meaning of type 5
suffixes wouldn't make sensee on asubject.
>It's really not such a big deal not to have questions as objects or
>relative
>pronouns. Really.
The most amusing part about this discussion to me is that I don't use QAO.
I was playing devil's advocate in my original post. I simply could see no
grammatical reason QAO shouldn't be allowed, so I felt it was unreasonable
to jump on people for using it. Since the custom of the list seems to be to
not use it because it's such a point of contention, I don't use it.
_________________________________________________________________
MSN Photos is the easiest way to share and print your photos:
http://photos.msn.com/support/worldwide.aspx