tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Sat May 27 10:34:23 1995
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
Re: What's wrong with "which"?
According to R.B Franklin:
>
> To me, "which" is similar to "what" and "who". "What" inquires as to one of
> any conceivable possibility, "who" inquires as to what person, while "which"
> inquires as to one of a particular group or objects or persons.
This is my point, entirely. Unfortunately, we have no
guidelines that I can recall for how to narrow the field. If
you just put the question word (noun) after another noun, then
you are either treating the question word as if it were
adjectival (which doesn't work, since the word is not a verb)
or you are making a possessive structure.
I'm not really attracted to this, though I can understand how
it might be construed to work.
> If I say, "What should I use...," the answer can refer to any object
> whatsoever, but if I ask, "Which weapon should I use...", I am asking the
> same question, but I have simply narrowed down the list of possible
> answers to weapons.
>
> I would state the two questions as follows:
> Human vIQaw'meH nuq vIlo'? (What should I use to destroy the human?)
> Human vIQaw'meH nuH nuq vIlo'? (Which weapon should I use to destroy the
> human?) or (What weapon should I use to destroy the human?)
What of the weapons should I use... The weapon's what should I
use... I think I'd like it better if it were an explicit
plural. Still, it could be asking whether I should use the
blade to stab them or the hilt to bludgeon them. I could be
asking about anything belonging to or associated with the
weapons.
> By using {nuq} or {'Iv} in a noun-noun construction, you are narrowing the
> choice of answers to a specific group, which is exactly the fuction "which"
> performs in English, i.e. what or whom, out of a particular group.
I don't really agree that this is clearly the case. It might be
the case, but it does not seem to be so definitely the only
meaning this could have as you seem to expect. It just feels
idomatic. Perhaps Klingons have this idiom, but I don't feel so
sure without any canon to back it up.
Human vIHoHmeH nuH moch yIwIv.
This seems at LEAST as clearly authentic to the thought as what
you propose.
> tay yuQmeyvam nuq? (Which of these planets is civilized?)
This could be asking which portion of each planet is civilized,
or which moon of the planets is civilized.
taybogh yuQmeyvam HI'ang.
> qama'pu'vam 'Iv wIHoH? (Which of these prisoners should we kill?)
You could be asking whether we should kill these prisoners'
brothers or their fathers.
wIHoHmeH qama'pu' puS yIwIv.
This has no such ambiguity.
> naDev cha' Duy'a' tu'lu'. ghoqwI' ghaH cha' 'Iv'e'? (There are two
> ambassadors here. Which of the two is a spy?)
naDev cha' Duy'a' tu'lu'. ghoqwI' Dabogh wa' Duy'a''e' yI'ang.
> qaStaHvIS tay HIpmeywIj nuq vItuQ? (Which of my uniforms should I wear at
> the ceremony?)
All this "should" stuff sounds wrong.
tay vIghoSmeH HIpwIj yIwIv.
Hmm. Perhaps:
tay vISuchmeH HIpwIj yIwIv.
> yoDtargh
charghwI'
--
\___
o_/ \
<\__,\
"> | Get a grip.
` |