tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Wed Dec 10 23:26:02 1997

Back to archive top level

To this year's listing

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]

Re: Question as object

-----Original Message-----
From: Mark E. Shoulson <[email protected]>
To: Multiple recipients of list <[email protected]>
Date: Tuesday, December 09, 1997 10:30 PM
Subject: Re: Question as object


>You have to express indirect questions
>SOMEhow, the question is how.

Do you mean we have to express *what English expresses as indirect
questions* somehow?

I agree 100% that there are two possible meanings in the sentence "I saw who
was standing there."  No problem.

If Bob was standing there, and I saw Bob, {pa' QamtaHbogh Bob vIlegh} works
perfectly using a relative clause.  No problem.

Now, I'm not sure why the other meaning, "I saw who it was who was standing
there," CANNOT be yet another of those types of sentences which MUST be
recast before being said in Klingon.  We have lots of them already.  As
charghwI' says, the only defined function of {'e'} is to refer to the entire
previous sentence.  It's a pronoun.  There's nothing indicating that it will
"convert" a question into a statement related to the answer to that
question, and refer to that.  It's just {'e'}.

I am not saying that questions as objects CANNOT work, but so far I've been
able to recast these question as object sentences into forms that DO work
with other, known Klingon grammar.

Often, in showing how relative clauses don't always work, you've shown that
they don't work because we're not referring to, say, the person himself, but
to his *identity*.  If we had a noun for "identity," we'd be able to use the
relative clause?  The fact that we don't have such a noun might support your
examples, but isn't this really a matter of choosing vocabulary that matches
your concept?

"I heard who murdered the emperor."  Since English *does* allow for these
indirect questions, this is no problem.  {ta' chot Bob 'e' vIQoy} "I heard
that Bob killed the emperor."  But you can't necessarily say {ta' chotbogh
Bob vIQoy} because you don't hear the noun, you hear fact of the murder.

You believe that questions as objects are the best answer here, but why
can't we say, "The vocabulary being used simply doesn't support this
concept, so we have to recast."  I'd say that {ta' chotbogh ghot pong vIQoy}
"I heard the name of the person who murdered the emperor" tells you exactly
the same thing as the hypothetical {ta' chot 'Iv 'e' vIQoy}, but it uses
only known Klingon grammar.  I still cannot agree that questions as objects
are the best solution.  I think you have to adjust your choice of vocabulary
to be able to use known Klingon grammar.

(And what if it wasn't his name I heard, but something else?  What is an
identity but a name, a description, etc.  Well, define that something else,
and substitute in for {pong}.)

-----BEGIN ASIDE-----
In fact, I don't like either of these sentences for another reason.  It
seems very un-Klingon to me.

A: ta' chot 'Iv 'e' vIQoy!
B: chot 'Iv?

A: ta' chotbogh ghot pong vIQoy!
B: chot 'Iv?

If A knows who did it, why doesn't he just say who it is right away, instead
of announcing that he knows, and waiting for B to ask him who?  Certainly,
you might come up with situations where this might be necessarily, but it
just feels funny to me to represent standard Klingon behavior.  This is just
an opinion aside, not a grammatical argument.

A: Bob chot ta' 'e' vIQoy!
B: yISam!
-----END ASIDE-----

I guess I see the question as object argument very much the same as someone
arguing that we need a noun for "delay" to be able to translate the
sentence, "There will be a short delay."  You simply must accept that you
need to use different grammar and vocabulary ({loQ wImImlu'}).  Some have
argued that we can use any verb as a noun.  I think that's untrue, and tell
them to recast.  I personally feel that questions as objects fall into this
category, and are not only not necessary, but are also not evidenced
anywhere in the language.

SuStel
Stardate 97944.6

Back to archive top level