tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Fri Jul 02 19:25:11 2004

Back to archive top level

To this year's listing

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]

Re: nuq vIjatlh DaneH

David Trimboli ([email protected]) [KLI Member] [Hol po'wI']

From: <[email protected]>

> In a message dated 2004-07-02 6:56:09 PM Eastern Daylight Time,
> [email protected] writes:
>
> > > *{nuq vIjatlh DaneH} seems simple enough, but it technically violates
what
> > > we know about Klingon.  Until Okrand says otherwise, avoid it.
> >
> > My opinion is that the technical violation is unproven.  I freely admit
that
> > my opinion is based on my assuming what Marc Okrand *really* meant
rather
> > than accepting as universally applicable what he is reported to have
said in
> > a certain context.
> >
> > -- ghunchu'wI'
> >
> Especially if you turn it around and use the answer as a model.  Then
there
> simply is no question to confuse the issue.  {<tlhaQ ghu'vam> Dajatlh
vIneH.}
> I agree with ghunchu'wI'.  Okrand's statement about QAO was about a
completely
> different type of sentence.  Replacing <tlhaQ ghu'vam> with <nuq> makes
> perfect sense, and remains a question, asking for an answer.  Do I need to
say this
> is my opinion?  Or does my simply saying it imply that?

Careful!  The trick in *{nuq Dajatlh vIneH} is that the answer cannot be a
quotation.  There are two ways to say "I want you to say, 'This is a funny
situation'":

    tlhaQ ghu'vam bIjatlh vIneH
    bIjatlh tlhaQ ghu'vam vIneH.

With the verbs of saying, {jatlh} and {ja'}, the quotation is simply a
separate sentence, placed on either side of the sentence with the verb of
saying.  The quotation is not the object of the verb.

Change your answer to something like {SoQ Dajatlh vIneH} and you can make
this argument.

If ghunchu'wI' is indeed correct in interpreting DloraH's report of Okrand's
intended meaning, then I agree that the information does not disprove
questions as objects in general.  In fact, I think that sentences like these
are the strongest logic in favor of such constructions: in *{nuq Dajatlh
vIneH}, {nuq} could just be fulfilling its normal role of standing in for
the answer (e.g., SoQ Dajatlh vIneH).  However, without clearer evidence I
am not prepared to use questions as objects.  Until information comes our
way from Okrand, the construction will continue to annoy a lot of people,
including me, and there are plenty of alternatives.

SuStel
Stardate 4504.0

P.S.: I haven't changed the person of {jatlh} and {neH} in the above
sentences, but you could make them both third person and the situation is
the same.

Back to archive top level