tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Wed May 20 07:53:29 2009
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
Re: Question problem
- From: Terrence Donnelly <[email protected]>
- Subject: Re: Question problem
- Date: Wed, 20 May 2009 07:52:28 -0700 (PDT)
- Dkim-signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=sbcglobal.net; s=s1024; t=1242831148; bh=d2aXXNHjLDd7ixCHM5c3KTDRMy6NZ3ImYluTB+tz294=; h=Message-ID:X-YMail-OSG:Received:X-Mailer:Date:From:Reply-To:Subject:To:In-Reply-To:MIME-Version:Content-Type; b=ysqEyQsNAKlZtp01kxkG7pOiNHCvpgRlU4ffq4sXBWB7HbScjPL+wsMvM4LwpMk5cU4OCYDTLeMODdbqe2kOEMvECP4OV4EqEzmdFmzv6wdTpNOqPxj8s3yNEqP3xp5RlRDhA/QN+XTh5ZsaItiED6dML4N8vgxBhPMNDT48Ze4=
- Domainkey-signature: a=rsa-sha1; q=dns; c=nofws; s=s1024; d=sbcglobal.net; h=Message-ID:X-YMail-OSG:Received:X-Mailer:Date:From:Reply-To:Subject:To:In-Reply-To:MIME-Version:Content-Type; b=iqh4eKatqVtuzHANF4HinU8C/PuoPIK2c+T/lk8LIaHeRKa4fgn5eA4FTJKZLeyyFjDD82L9EILas0GNMyav/4YuCuRhInrCMM+ReUNgb+61d08s4oEb5QIgJT4uq1zMPy8femEeyeRxlM+E6rDvIeFYNpS4kU3IGmVu3pjX26I=;
- In-reply-to: <[email protected]>
--- On Wed, 5/20/09, Doq <[email protected]> wrote:
> From: Doq <[email protected]>
> Subject: Re: Question problem
> To: [email protected]
> Date: Wednesday, May 20, 2009, 6:44 AM
> We were told that question words take the place of the words
> that
> answer them. {nuq} is treated grammatically like the noun
> it replaces.
> The answer could be the same sentence with {nuq} replaced
> by the noun
> that answers the question. I had thought that discussions
> similarly
> took the "beginning" question words as
> adverbials.
>
> My mistake, I guess.
>
> Of course, that doesn't resolve why we should prefer to
> have the
> adverbial or the question word first, except to mimic the
> English word
> order preference.
>
Well, not completely. I think a good argument could be made that it is most logical to put the most important words first in an utterance, and the question word in a question can plausibly be called the most important word. Just because English and Klingon came to the same conclusion doesn't invalidate it.
-- ter'eS