tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Tue Nov 19 15:32:25 1996
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
Re: KLBC: nuq
- From: Marc Ruehlaender <[email protected]>
- Subject: Re: KLBC: nuq
- Date: Tue, 19 Nov 1996 17:32:20 CST
- In-Reply-To: Your message of "Mon, 18 Nov 1996 17:24:52 PST." <[email protected]>
SuStel writes:
> There is no easy way to say "Which <noun>."
Adrian (HurghwI') writes:
> Ha'DIbaH 'oHbogh nuq wIje'laH.
> "What can we buy which is meat?"
charghwI' answered:
> >If this were acceptable (and I don't think it is), it has a
> >small error. {Ha'DIbaH 'oHbogh nuq'e' wIje'laH.} You need the
> >{-'e'} on the subject of any "to be" verb. Meanwhile, this
> >creates a problem if you ever want the head noun of the *"to
> >be"bogh* to be the object of the *"to be"bogh*.
>
HurghwI' again:
> The obvious solution to this seems to be to switch the order.
>
(now me :)
actually, I think the subject of a "to be"-construct is the only
reasonable thing to be referred to if you want to make a {-bogh}-
clause out of it. So I don't see _that_ as a problem, however...
ghunchu'wI' mentioned:
> >> Using a "to be" construction like this seems pretty contrived, but it
> >> also seems to convey exactly the meaning intended.
... I don't think so! Let me try to show why:
there are two cases for a "to be" construct with a question word:
i) the question word is the object, ii) it is the subject/verb
i) e.g. {nuq 'oH Ha'DIbaH'e'} "The animal is a what?" or in English:
"What kind of an animal do we have here? :-"
(or maybe "An animal is what?" or similar things)
I don't see this as a suitable candidate to be {-bogh}-ed
ii) e.g. {Ha'DIbaH 'oH nuq'e'} (btw, can we say {Ha'DIbaH nuq}?)
"The what is an animal?", this might occur in a context where it's
full reading was "You've talked about several things... which one
did you call an animal?" (I think of {SoH 'Iv} as someone looking
at a hologram of a crew and asking "Which one's you?")
However, this is what I _think_ it _could_ mean, I doubt there's
any canon supporting this translation. By ways of canon supporting
{SoH 'Iv} = {'Iv SoH}, I'm bound to say, that ii) means exactly
the same as i) :-(
But even in my interpretation, I don't see how this would fit
into a {-bogh}-clause.
So, I'm with charghwI' here: better stick to commands.
(of course you have to use the appropriate ones, if you want the
shopkeeper to show you his meat, say so! {Ha'DIbaH Dangevqangbogh
HI'ang})
HomDoq