tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Fri Jul 02 08:08:25 2004
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
Re: ghelmeH mu'tlhegh'e' Sayu'
- From: "QeS lagh" <[email protected]>
- Subject: Re: ghelmeH mu'tlhegh'e' Sayu'
- Date: Sat, 03 Jul 2004 01:07:39 +1000
- Bcc:
ghItlhpu' SuStel:
>Next, we have the old problem of Question as Object. It has been reported
>that Marc Okrand says you can't use questions as objects. This more or
>less
>ended a long-standing debate in the Klingon-speaking community. {nuq
>vIjatlh} is a question, and so can't be the object of {neH}. Therefore,
>this sentence is invalid.
lughchu' SuStel. 'ach Dar'Qang vIboQmeH, DloraH jabbI'ID vImuch:
"The first one I nailed him with was our lovely QAO. Uh-oh. You can not
use a 'question' as an object; but... it is not known yet if Klingon
question words can act as one of those ... relative pronoun... The safest
thing for now would be to recast if possible." (DloraH, personal
conversation with Okrand, May 1998)
Relative clauses in Klingon are formed with {-bogh}, thus *{nuq vIjatlh
DaneH} would probably need to be recast as something like {mu'tlhegh vIjatlh
DaneHbogh yIngu'}. Longer, but error-free.
(Aside: At least once in canon, Okrand has used a headless relative clause
to get around this, but I would recommend against using that particular
oddity. At least until we see some more canon support for it, anyway.)
Dar'Qang, I recommend that you look here:
/wiki/index.php?Common%20Grammar%20Questions%20And%20Problems
There's a summary of the QAO problem on that page.
Savan.
QeS lagh
_________________________________________________________________
Get a Virgin Credit Card and win an adventure:
http://ad.doubleclick.net/clk;8661322;9498324;s?http://www.promo.com.au/virgincreditcard/firstbirthday/track.cfm?source=N92