tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Sat Dec 13 06:53:26 1997
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
Re: Question as object
- From: "William H. Martin" <[email protected]>
- Subject: Re: Question as object
- Date: Sat, 13 Dec 1997 09:53:20 -0500 (Eastern Standard Time)
- Priority: NORMAL
On Tue, 9 Dec 1997 19:32:50 -0800 (PST) "Mark E. Shoulson"
<[email protected]> wrote:
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
>
> >Date: Sun, 7 Dec 1997 22:45:58 -0800 (PST)
> >From: "William H. Martin" <[email protected]>
> >
> >On Fri, 5 Dec 1997 10:17:24 -0800 (PST) "Mark E. Shoulson"
> ><[email protected]> wrote:
> >
> >> >Date: Sun, 30 Nov 1997 20:51:42 -0800 (PST)
> >> >From: Alan Anderson <[email protected]>
> >> >
> >> >ja' ~mark:
> >> >>..."The lieutenant learned what fueled the ship." It's not "the
> >> >>captain learned the substance that fueled the ship". If the substance is
> >> >>stale kevas, how do you learn kevas? You learn the identity of the
> >> >>substance, which is not the same thing.
> >
> >SoghvaD nIn'e' poQbogh Duj 'anglu'.
> >
> >An "indirect question" is not a grammatical structure addressed
> >by the Klingon langauge. No reference exists for it in TKD or
> >anywhere else in canon. No examples exist in canon. Indirect
> >speech in general is not supported, as you, ~mark, were first to
> >point out.
>
> Indirect speech and indirect questions are related only in the words used
> to name them in English.
bIQIjmo' jIbel, 'ach wej bIQIjchu'ta'.
> >> >>Is there an answer to this that doesn't require QAO?
> >
> >See above example.
> >
> >> >>Maybe. But it is NOT
> >> >>as simple as you are making it out to be: an ordinary relative clause
> >> >>doesn't cut it.
> >
> >Oh it doesn't, doesn't it? So what is wrong with the above
> >attempt?
>
> Nothing. But it's not as simple as one would expect, in that you had to
> change the verb.
wot vIchoHmo' bIbelHa''a'? mughmeH motlh mIwvam. mu'mey
choHnISbe'lu'chugh mughbe'lu'. ngoq chenmoHlu' neH.
> Like I said, QAO isn't the only answer, but blind use of
> relative clauses (because they look like relative clauses in English) isn't
> either.
jIQochbe'chu'. qay'DI' qechvam, reH *relative clause* vIlo''a'?
ghobe'! chopumHa'.
> I notice you missed on the concept of "learning", replacing it
> with "was revealed." If those concepts are really interchangeable, how
> come we have both verbs?
qechmey law' 'oS wa' wot 'e DaSov. tlhIngan Hol vIghoj. mIwmey
vIghoj. paQDI'norgh vIghoj. laHmey vIghoj. nIn Segh vIghoj'a'?
ghobe'. jIHvaD nIn Segh 'anglu'mo' nIn Segh vIngu'choHlaH.
Qu'vamvaD puj <<ghoj>>.
> >> Thank you. I *had* heard of them, but had forgotten them and never fully
> >> appreciated the distinction until I thought about them during this
> >> discussion. I am glad I was able to communicate their importance, and that
> >> I managed to convince some of you not to sweep them under the rug.
> >
> >Why, oh WHY can't we just sweep it under the rug? It isn't
> >necessary and it doesn't work.
>
> Because *something* IS necessary and frankly from where I stand QAO looks
> like the best candidate. NOT the only one, mind you, but the objections to
> it are looking weaker and weaker to me. There are other ways out there,
> I'm sure, and you're finding at least some of them. Which is right? Not
> sure about that one.
qech'e' 'oSbogh mu' <<'e'>> DachoH DaneH. <<'e'>> qech DelDI'
*Okrand*, yepqu'. qechlIj Delbe'. le'qu' <<'e'>>. wa' qech neH
'oS. mu'tlhegh vebHa' neH 'oS <<'e'>>. mu'tlhegh vebHa' rurbogh
qech'e' 'oSbe' <<'e'>>.
> >> >This example is unlike the ones that I've complained about. The object of
> >> >the second sentence is *not* a simple noun identified by what looks like a
> >> >question word. In this case, the object indeed is a complete sentence.
> >> >The whole construction still isn't a real question, but there is an implied
> >> >answer. Its sort of "He learned [the answer to] 'what fueled the ship?'"
> >>
> >> Right. That was Krankor's contention all along, that QAO meant "I know
> >> [the answer to] that." He just never really couched it in terms of
> >> indirect questions or drew the distinction between them and relative
> >> clauses.
> >
> >Meanwhile, there is only one use of the pronoun {'e'} given to
> >us and you and Krankor are trying to make up a new one. It is
> >supposed to represent THE PREVIOUS SENTENCE. Not a noun from the
> >previous sentence. Not a closely related other sentence. The
> >previous sentence itself alone can be represented by {'e'}.
> >Until Okrand tells us {'e'} can represent something other than
> >the previous sentence itself, there is no justification
> >whatsoever for what you are calling an "indirect question".
>
> The strongest argument I saw against QAO was that it seemed to behave like
> it was referring to a single noun from the previous sentence, and not the
> sentence as a whole. This is NOT the case.
jISaHbe'. DIp mu'tlhegh pIm ghap 'oSlaHbe' <<'e'>>. wa'
mu'tlhegh neH 'oSlaH <<'e'>>.
> That it refers to, as you put
> it, "a closely related" sentence does not trouble me as it does you, since
> the sentence is *awfully* closely related. Close enough that in a logical
> sense, they are equivalent.
vIt DangoghmoH. Hegh. pImbej mu'tlheghmeyvam. ngoDvam
DabuSHa'DI' bImujchoH.
> "I heard who killed the emperor"
*idiom* 'oHba'. nuq DaQoy? nuv DaQoy'a'? ghobe! mu'mey DaQoy.
lut DaHarbogh DaQoy. ngoDHey Delbogh mu'tlheghmey'e' DaQoy.
SoHvaD ta' HoHbogh nuv'e' ngu'lu'. SoHvaD pongDaj 'anglu'. 'ach
potlhqu' mu' <<Qoy>> 'e' DaHarlaw'. bIDogh. bImughchu'be'.
bImughlaw'Qo'. nuqDaq chovnatlhlIj tu'lu'? chovnatlh qanob 'ej
pagh chonob 'ej bIbep. wejpuH.
> and "I heard
> that Worf killed the emperor," in that the "who" in the first sentence
> refers to the Worf in the second (assuming it was Worf, that is). It would
> NOT be accurate to say "I heard Worf" (since that may not be true).
jIQochbe'ba'.
> What I
> heard, what the first sentence has as its object, is "that it was Worf who
> killed the Emperor". A *full sentence*, and one logically equivalent to
> the one used.
ta' HoH wo'rIv 'e' vIHar. vIHar. vIQoybe'. vIHar. ngoDHey vIHar.
ngoDHey muDelpu' 'ej vIHar. mu'mey vIQoy. ta' HoH wo'rIv 'e'
vIQoylaHbe'. QoQ vIQoylaH. ta' HoH wo'rIv 'e' vIHarlaH.
> Is that a stretch?
HIja'.
> From the question to the answer? Probably.
teH Da'oSHa'bej.
> I contend
> that the stretch involved is sufficiently minimal that I would expect it to
> happen.
jaS mapIH.
> In my very first answer on this thread that "stretch" is what I
> thought people had a problem with, and now I see it's pretty much all there
> is left of the problem. Owing to the logical equivalence of the sentences
> being so used, I'm not sure it is much of a stretch.
bIngormeH *logical equivalence* Dalo'. rap'a'? ghobe! pItlh!
> I can, however, see
> why one might consider it one, so as I said, I'm still open to the
> possibility that there are other answers.
chovnatlhmeyna' QaQ HInob.
...
> >Or perhaps we are hung up on an idiom here. De'wI'mey
> >vItI'laHchu'. This whole "how" concept is unnecessary to get
> >this meaning communicated. To add "method" to it suggests that
> >you are talking about a single procedure for a single kind of
> >problem. There are many elements of the language to handle the
> >subtle differences between meanings here in terms of how certain
> >you are that you can repair them, how often you can repair them
> >with that level of certainty or how many different types of
> >computers you can apply this skill toward. The language is quite
> >versatile in these regards, which strike me as much more useful
> >than this "difference" you are so concerned about here.
>
> OK, then how about "The book describes how to fix computers"? You can't
> fall back on that idiom.
bIqar, 'ach ram. mapImqu' paq jIH je. De'wI'mey vItI'laHbej.
mIwmey law' DellaH paq 'ach nIv laHwIj. mIw chu' vIchenmoHlaH.
Qu'vam ta'laHbe' paq. mIwmey Del paq. De'wI'mey vItI'laH. pImqu'
ghu'meyvam. ghu'meyvam Dellu'meH mu'mey pIm lo'nISlu'.
> Personally, I'm in favor of "De'wI' tI'meH mIw
> Del paq" (as I imagine you would be)
bIqar.
> -- note that number of methods doesn't
> matter, since Klingon doesn't mark number mandatorily.
ram.
> Like I said, the
> indirect question "difference" is so small it may not actually exist in
> this case. A normal -meH (or possibly -bogh) clause works just fine.
bIghoHHa'.
> >
> >> Then there's my other favorite of "I know whether the captain died."
> >
> >HoD yIn Dotlh vISov.
>
> Aha, you couldn't use -bogh or -chugh, could you?
qatlh <<-bogh>> <<-chugh>> ghap vIlo' DaneH? mu'meyvam lo'nISlu'
not 'e' vIchup. rap *indirect question* *relative clause* not
vIjatlh. vIjatlh muj *indirect question*. cho'oSHa'.
> There IS an indirect
> question here, and you chose to express it by bringing in the extra noun
> "Dotlh." It's not a bad answer, by any stretch.
qatlho'.
> I hadn't thought of it,
> but it works. It isn't very general, though.
jISaHbe'. mughlu'DI' Hoch qech qelnISlu'.
> What about "The commander
> will judge whether the Ferengi needs to give 200 Darseks to the merchant
> because he broke the vase"?
bal ghorpu'mo' verengan 'ej maqmo' Suy <<cha'vatlh *Darsek*
muDIlnIS verengan,>> verengan San wuq la'.
> (I bet if I'd worded it as "I judged..." as I
> had originally planned you'd just say "well, say what you judged and have
> done." But I didn't).
qatlh ghoHmeH to'wIj DaloytaH? mutammoH 'e' DapIH'a'? 'ach pIj
bIloyHa'. rut loQ qechwIj DayajHa'. jI'oS'egh 'e' vImaS.
> I can't see a good place to put {Dotlh} or a
> related noun to handle that.
San.
> And note that I want {noH} there, or
> SOMEthing that gets across the judging.
wuq. <<chov>> rur <<noH>>. Qu'vamvaD nIv <<wuq>>.
> I think I can think of a way, but it involves saying the same thing twice.
qay'be'. yI'ang.
> >> Someone suggested that "Heghpu'chugh HoD ['e'/ngoDvetlh] vISov" wasn't too
> >> bad: if the captain has died, I know it. I maintain it isn't enough.
> >
> >I agree that it is not that strong a translation. I think
> >{Dotlh} is a very useful word for most if not all of these
> >"whether" examples.
>
> Try the above. Be warned that if you get it, I'll probably come up with a
> trickier one.
maj. jImughrup. reH mughrup mughwI''a'!
> >> >I'm still going to try to avoid using questions as objects. They might
> >> >have their place, but it's a "fence-around-the-law" kind of thing. If I
> >> >start sprinkling {ghItlh qonta' 'Iv 'e' lughoj} and the like through my
> >> >writings, it might give people the erroneous impression that I accept the
> >> >superficially similar {ghItlh qonta' 'Iv 'e' lughov} -- which I do not. :-P
> >
> >I find it absolutely amazing that you can accept one and reject
> >the other. They are both gibberish.
>
> One is "they learn who it was who wrote the manuscipt" (they learned his
> identity) and one is "they recognize the person who wrote the manuscript",
> which were better done as a relative clause.
DumISmoHqa' *idiom*. qabDaj lughoj'a'? chaH ghojmoH 'Iv? chaHvaD
pongDaj 'anglu'. pongDaj lutu'pu'. ram lughoj.
> >> Which is why I make sure to punctuate it as a "rhetorical" question, to
> >> drive the point home that I'm not using a relative clause. It's better
> >> than nothing. If QAO is the way to go, we must be very careful to make
> >> sure that people recognize the difference between it and relative clauses.
not He lugh 'oH *QAO*'e'.
> >The difference is that relative clauses are explained in TKD, we
> >have examples of them in canon, they make sense and everyone
> >understands them, while indirect questions are not addressed at
> >all in TKD, there are no canon examples whatsoever, they don't
> >make sense and many of us do not understand what they are
> >supposed to mean. Note that when I translate into Klingon what
> >you seek to express as you explain in English, I usually don't
> >use either relative clauses or indirect questions. I agree that
> >your examples don't generally work well with relative clauses,
> >but just because you've found meanings which overstretch the
> >function of a relative cluase doesn't mean that some other valid
> >Klingon grammar can't carry those examples. Indirect questions
> >are not valid.
>
> Indirect questions simply *are*. Whether or not they are translated using
> a question-form or whatever isn't really relevant. You might as well say
> that instruments do not exist in Klingon. They do, but they are expressed
> using purpose clauses ({verengan vIHoHmeH taj vIlo'}). That doesn't mean
> you can't express an instrument, it means you have to do it using the
> Klingon method of purpose clauses. You have to express indirect questions
> SOMEhow, the question is how.
Weren't you the one who argued that Klingon doesn't have passive
voice. It has {-lu'} and I was horribly wrong for arguing that
the passive voice exists and that {-lu'} behaves enough like
passive voice that it is okay to use the term? Well, if indirect
questions exist, why is it necessary for Klingon to express it?
And if it does express it, why do you think QAO would be the
tool for doing so? Your arguement is so weak you never even
provide any Klingon examples to suggest as being the right way
to express the concept.
> >> Other answers I could think of tend to be more restrictive. Of
> >> course, Okrand can invent a whole new class of words or constructions I
> >> can't even guess at. Occam's razor, to my mind, supports QAO, but that's
> >> no proof; languages don't behave that rationally.
> >
> >I don't think rational behavior has much to do with indirect
> >questions. Perhaps there is a connection somewhere there that
> >I'm not seeing.
>
> I meant that by Occam's razor, I'd expect QAO to be right, that it seems
> the most rational and logical answer to me. My own perception. However,
> rationality and logic have little to do with how a language will choose to
> do things, so that perspective, even if it were not personal and
> subjective, doesn't mean very much,
mu'mey lugh vISamlaHbe'. puj. DaH vIHoHchugh jIquv'eghmoHbe'.
> ~mark
charghwI'