tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Fri Jan 07 12:46:36 2011
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
Re: mu'tlheghvam yIlughmoH
I honestly think you are making a distinction where there isn't one. In all cases {'e'} refers to the previous sentence, whether you put the period between the two sentences or not. The romanized alphabet and punctuation that we use is merely a phonetic representation of spoken Klingon, and in Klingon EVERY use of the pronoun {'e'} involves two separate sentences.
So, this really is the QAO problem, at its root. When I say, {wa'Hu' bIjatlh 'e' vISovbe'}, I'm saying "I don't know that you spoke yesterday." Meanwhile, if I were to say (and this is, so far as we know a completely bogus, faulty attempt at a Klingon statement), {nuq Dajatlh 'e' vISovbe'.} then the problem is that I'm not really wanting {'e'} to represent the entire previous sentence. I'm really intending {'e'} to represent the unknown thing that the single word {nuq} is standing for. I'd be trying to say, "I don't know what you said," and I'd be completely wrong in thinking that this is what I had actually said in Klingon. Instead I'd be saying something like "I don't know that what did you say?" It's gibberish in English, too, unless you make the same kind of "Let's ignore the grammar here and just cherry pick the words out of the sentence that we want to pay attention to" thing that you are doing in the Klingon.
It's like if I said, {yaS qIppu' puq 'e' vIlegh} and instead of intending it to mean "I saw that the child hit the officer," I instead really wanted it to mean "I saw the child who hit the officer." I'd be mistakenly using the pronoun {'e'} to represent one word out of the previous sentence instead of meaning the entire previous sentence. The word {puq} or the word {nuq} is just a word, not a sentence, and that's the thing you are using {'e'} to replace. That's the mistake.
Actually, the real problem here is that in English, we use relative pronouns that don't exist in Klingon. Relative clauses in Klingon are based on verbs instead of pronouns. This is further complicated by the way English uses the same words as interrogative words and relative pronouns. This is less of a problem in my example than in yours because it is easy to recognize that a person who uses a question with {nuq} who is trying to build a relative clause should just use the Klingon equivalent relative clause. But you used {chay'} which has no Klingon equivalent as a relative pronoun.
In your example, what you want is a relative pronoun we don't have in Klingon. You want the non-interrogative version of "how", as in, "I know how to tie my shoes." Klingon doesn't have that word because relative clauses use verbs at the root instead of pronouns as in English. You can't use the Klingon interrogative {chay'} as a relative pronoun, and that is frustrating. I feel your pain, but wanting it to work doesn't make it work.
So, when we want to say something like, "I know how to tie my shoes," we have to completely recast the sentence to be something like "I can tie my shoes." It means the same thing, but it avoids the impossible grammar of the original. You could also say, "I know the in-order-to-tie-my-shoes method." I'm sure there are other ways to cast it, but Klingon simply lacks a way to say, "I know how to tie my shoes." The grammar is not there to do it. Making following a question with {'e'} is tempting, but it doesn't work.
pItlh.
lojmIt tI'wI' nuv
On Jan 7, 2011, at 1:55 PM, Steven Boozer wrote:
> Voragh:
>>> chay' van bomvam? wej 'e' vISov.
>>> How does this song end? I don't know [that] yet.
> lojmIt tI'wI'nuv
>> Are there any canon examples of a question as object as you propose
>> here? Typically, {'e'} represents a sentence, not the answer or
>> response to a sentence, which is what you are suggesting.
>
> Actually, this wasn't the dreaded question-as-object (QAO). That would be (correcting my earlier mis-use of {van}):
>
> * wej chay' bomvam luvan 'e' vISov.
> I don't know how they end this song yet.
>
> It's actually two separate sentences.
>
> chay' bomvam luvan? wej 'e' vISov.
> How do they end this song? I don't know that yet.
>
> And yes, I know it's a fine distinction - especially in speech - but the pronoun {'e'} "that (previous topic)" can be used this way, just like any other pronoun. E.g.
>
> 'e' luSov
> They know that. TKD
>
> 'e' vIlegh
> I see that. TKD
>
> 'e' neHbe' vavwI'.
> That wasn't what my father wanted. ST6
>
> 'e' bop.
> That's what it's all about.
> (Qanqor at qep'a' 2005; usage approved by Okrand)
>
>
> --
> Voragh
> Ca'Non Master of the Klingons
>
>
>