tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Tue Mar 12 21:51:10 1996
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
Re: asking
- From: [email protected] (Alan Anderson)
- Subject: Re: asking
- Date: Wed, 13 Mar 1996 00:53:03 -0500
ter'eS writes:
>> ...The gloss "request, ask, plead" certainly fits my
>> understanding of a "verb of speaking" -- its object would be the actual
>> question or request.
>
>Except that I've been told by others on this list that when Okrand puts
>multiple meanings in a definition, he does it to *restrict* and not expand
>the definition. So "request" and "plead" seem to me to be restricting
>"ask" to one type of asking - for a thing. You don't "request" a
>question, but you can request an object.
Turning your argument against you, you don't "plead" or "ask" an object.
I think the "restricted" definition would have to be whatever is common
to the words "request", "ask", and "plead." In my opinion, this is simply
the idea of stating a question. In English, "request" is polite, "ask" is
neutral, and "plead" is forceful and perhaps deferential. In Klingon, all
these are the same concept.
>> My take on {yu'} is that its object is the person (or thing) that is being
>> interrogated. {qama' po'wI' joq yu'lu'. vay' SuqmeH tlhoblu'.}
>
>I can't argue with that. It does seem intuitivly right. But, in Dave
>Barron's {lut'a'}, he uses {yu'} with a sentence as its object:
>{"bISuvrup'a'" yu' qoch} (or something like that - I don't have
>{jatmey} with me). Is this simply wrong?
You're close enough -- it's {"bISuvqu'rup'a'?" yu' qoch.} While I can't
say for certain that this is incorrect, it's not how I would say it. My
bias^H^H^H^H knowledge of English lets me understand it without problem,
but my instincts tell me to avoid it.
-- ghunchu'wI' batlh Suvchugh vaj batlh SovchoH vaj