tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Mon Dec 16 13:48:24 1996
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
Re: Dr. Okarnd Speaks -- lengthy
>Date: Sun, 15 Dec 1996 14:10:42 -0800
>From: "William H. Martin" <[email protected]>
>
>On Sun, 15 Dec 1996 12:28:04 -0800 Kenneth Traft
><[email protected]> wrote:
>..
>> ***** Dr. Okrand's response ********
>>
>> Here's "what I think" about the two sentences in your note.
>
>> This one's a little easier to deal with. Your sentence
>> literally means "What is your preferable month?" The basic
>> syntax is correct. Question words (in this case, nuq
>> "what?") function the same way pronouns do in questions
>> with "to be" in the English translations. Thus, the
>> question yIH nuq? "What is a tribble?" is exactly parallel
>> the statement yIH 'oH "It is a tribble" (where yIH is
>> "tribble" and 'oH is "it").
>
>This is new. Until now, {nuq} functioned as a noun only. Now, he
>says it functions in all ways like a pronoun. In other words, it
>can function as a verb as well, "to be". Until now, the question
>had to be {nuq 'oH tribble'e'} or some might argue {tribble 'oH
>nuq'e'}. Now we can just say, {yIH nuq?} This is new, and
>useful. I suspect Krankor will be pleased. Of course, next
>people will be trying to put suffixes on {nuq}. Bad idea.
>
>It would completely explain {nuqDaq}, of course...
>
>But that begs to replace {qatlh} with *{nuqmo'}* and *{nuqmeH}*,
>which would each be less ambiguous than {qatlh}. Let's just use
>what he gave us and not start stretching it too much, okay?
Not really. He only said that "nuq" functions like a pronoun *in "to be"
constructions*, not in all ways. That is, it can be the predicate of the
sentence. We've already suspected that; Krankor wrote an article to this
effect ages ago in HolQeD. Nice to see it spelled out.
For better or worse, though, I do sometimes like "?nuqmo'" as a
deliberately long-winded variant of "qatlh". No support for it though, so
don't trust me.
~mark