tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Thu Dec 18 09:55:26 1997
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
Re: Question as object
>Date: Sat, 13 Dec 1997 07:18:33 -0800 (PST)
>From: "William H. Martin" <[email protected]>
>
>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'.
ghaytan.
>> >> >>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.
ghobe'! wot DachoHmo' jIbelqu'! DachoHbe'chugh, vaj "relative clauses"
Dalo' bIDoghtaHvIS. 'a Dalo'be' 'ej bIDoghbe'. pIm mu'tlheghvam "relative
clause" _nap_ je. muj mu'tlheghvam:
nIn'e' poQbogh Duj ghoj Sogh.
muj, 'a nap. rapchugh "indirect questions" "relative clauses" ('ej
raptaHvIS DIvI' Hol mIw pabchugh), vaj 'oH Dalo'nIS. Dalo'be', vaj pIm
(pIm qechmey qoj pIm tlhIngan Hol mIw DIvI' Hol mIw je). maQochbe'.
>> 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>>.
qevaS 'oHchugh nIn Segh'e', vaj nIn Segh vIghojbe', HIja'. 'ach qevaS 'oH
nIn Segh'e' 'e' vIghojbej! 'a jIQochbe'.
>> "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'.
"idiom" 'oH; jIQochbe'. 'a ramqu'nIS'a' <<Qoy>>? vay' vIQoy, HIja': ta'
chotta' DuraS'e' 'e' vIQoy. "DuraS" neH vIQoybe'. pongDaj, patlhDaj joq
neH vIQoybe'. mu'tlhegh naQ vIQoy: ta' chotta' DuraS'e'.
>> 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.
toH, DaH "muj <ta' HoH wo'rIv 'e' vIQoy>" bIjatlh'a'? qatlh? Hujbe'qu'
mu'tlheghvetlh. "ta' HoH wo'rIv 'e' vIlaD" vIja'laH'a'? ngoD vIleghlaH,
'a vIQoylaHbe' 'ej vIlaDlaHbe'? DaH, qechvam'e' vIqelDI', jIQoch.
>> >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'.
jIyajchu'be'; DaH qatlh maghoH? ram; "De'wI' tI'meH mIw Del paq" vImaSqu'
jIH 'ej DamaS je SoH, vaj maQochbe'.
>> >
>> >> 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'.
chaq qayajHa'. muj'a'? chaq qech 'oSmeH QaQbe' mu'mey, 'a chay mujlaH?
potlh qech, 'ej qechvetlh qelnIS Hol. chaq "tlhob"be', 'a qelnIS. mIw
tu'nISlu'.
>> 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'.
nuqjatlh? bep Suy not jIja'. chaq bepbe'. chaq Dach 'ej verengan qop
'avwI'. chaq qopbogh qoj bepbogh nuv vIngu'laHbe' (chIch QAO vIlo'be', 'ej
mIwlIj vIlo'), 'ej De'vetlh vIja'laHbe'. mu'tlhegh choHlu' mughlu'DI', 'a
lutwIj yIchoHQo'...
>> And note that I want {noH} there, or
>> SOMEthing that gets across the judging.
>
>wuq. <<chov>> rur <<noH>>. Qu'vamvaD nIv <<wuq>>.
QaQ qechvam, jIghoHQo'.
>> I think I can think of a way, but it involves saying the same thing twice.
>
>qay'be'. yI'ang.
bal ghorpu'mo' verengan, vaj SuyvaD cha'vatlh DarSeq nobnISchugh, wuq la',
'ej nobnISbe'chugh, wuq la'.
(Seghvam vay'. chovnatlhvam vIpar).
>> >> 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'!
The captain knows if the ships went from Kronos to Vulcan.
chaq ngeD, jIQubnIS...
>> >> 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'.
chaq jIghoHHa' jIH, 'a DaH bIghoHbe' SoH. bImaq neH. maqmo' neH lughbe'
maqwI' lughwI' joq.
(Aside: yes, I believe that the last sentence is OK for "it is not the case
that a proclaimer or one who is right is right because he merely
proclaims." i.e. I am not saying that proclaiming makes one not-right, but
that it doesn't make one right. cf. the "batlh bIHeghbe'" canon line.
Discussions of this should go on another thread).
>> >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.
Are we going to wrangle over terminology again? OK, for "indirect
questions" read "freeblewees" if the word "question" troubles you so much.
I had been giving examples, but since I admit the possibility of QAO you
wouldn't consider them Klingon examples, so that doesn't accomplish much.
~mark