tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Fri Apr 25 07:07:11 1997
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
Re: Practicing with questions
- From: [email protected] (Alan Anderson)
- Subject: Re: Practicing with questions
- Date: Fri, 25 Apr 97 08:26:21 EST
ja'pu' SuStel:
> No, that's worse. For example, {paq nuq} means "what is the book?" It
> shouldn't also mean "the book's what" or "which book." {nuq} is a question
> word, not a pronoun.
I'm pretty sure it was you who relayed Okrand's note on MSN which
basically said that {nuq} *does* act like a pronoun. That's how the
phrase {paq nuq} can be interpreted as a question. [It also said that
other question words act like pronouns; he probably just meant {'Iv}.]
ja' peHruS:
>bIlughbe' SuStel
>"What is the book?" wIjatlhmeH {nuq 'oH paqvetlh'e'} wIjatlhnIS
wIjatlhnISqu'be', 'ach wIjatlhlaHqu'.
>"Which book" 'oSba' {paq nuq}
nuqjatlh? jaS nuja'bejta' Okrand mu'mey.
>This refers to "what book of a set of books (plural)." Although TKD has not
>established how we say "which book," this discussion list has determined this
>usage to be proper.
You're confusing speculation and hypothetical constructs with reality
again, peHruS! 1) For the purposes of answering beginners' questions,
SuStel presently determines proper usage, with occasional corrections
from others when he's given a bad answer. This is not the case here.
2) "The list" has determined no such thing!
>We have two ways to expand tlhIngan Hol: wait for Marc
>Okrand to produce everything before we use it and, by sticking strictly to
>the rules and logic of the language, produce new sentences from the existing
>language.
Working within "the rules and logic of the language" does not expand
the language, it merely *uses* it. Choosing to interpret {paq nuq} as
"which book" goes beyond the rules as we know them.
>{nuq} already exists. We are merely using it in a logical manner,
>but a different manner than explicitly discussed already in TKD.
How do you come to the conclusion that *{Doch nuq} is a "logical" way
to say "which book"? If you're going by the apparent meaning of the
English translation "what of the books", you are trying to apply
English grammar to the phrase, and not "sticking strictly to the
rules" of tlhIngan Hol. It's exactly the same sort of "logical"
argument that leads to *{puqmey Hoch} for "all of the children", which
we now know is not correct.
>The publication of Hamlet, although not canon, followed much
>discussion of the topnotch Klingonists on this listserv;
Despite this, Hamlet has some real clunkers in it. They were, at the
time, based on "logical" arguments, but we find, time and again, that
extrapolating into unknown areas of Klingon grammar is not productive.
>and, NOUN + nuq appears to have become
>the preferable way of translating "which NOUN."
jIHvaD qaqbe' jay'!
I expect charghwI' would have something to say about *his* preferences
as well. [No, charghwI', you're not predictable. You're dependable.]
There is no question word in Klingon that directly translates the
interrogative use of the English relative pronoun "which." Klingon
doesn't *use* relative pronouns; it has a verb suffix instead.
>batlh Sachjaj tlhIngan wo' tlhIngan Hol je Qapla'
tlhIngan Hol wISachmoHlaHbe' maH. wIlo'laH neH.
batlh tlhIngan Hol wIlo'qu'jaj!
-- ghunchu'wI'