tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Fri Dec 19 10:36:09 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: Fri, 19 Dec 1997 13:36:06 -0500 (EST)
- In-Reply-To: <[email protected]> from "Mark E. Shoulson" at Dec 18, 97 10:07:53 am
mu'mey 'ar ngaSlaH QIjvam? ghurtaH 'ej ghurtaH!
According to Mark E. Shoulson:
>
> >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.
loQ jIyajchoH.
> >> >> >>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.
jIQochbe'. mujba'. napchugh jISaHbe'. ram.
> 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'.
maj. jup SoH 'ej maSuvchuqbe'chugh latlh DISuvlaHchu'.
> >> 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'.
jIyajchu'be'. qevaS ngevlu' net Sov. qevaS qellu'DI' Hoch
wISovbogh 'oH ngoDvam'e'. nIn 'oH'a'? waq Segh 'oH'a'? chab
DungDaq qevaS lanlu''a'? jaHmeH qevaS lo'chugh Duj vaj qevaS
wIyajchoH.
> >> "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'.
Dojbe' ngoDvam. <ta' chotta' DuraS'e'> Duja'lu'. potlhchugh
<Qoy> vaj qatlh ram <ja'>? ta' chotta' DuraS'e' 'e' DaHar.
potlhchugh <Qoy> vaj qatlh ram <Har>? qaSlaw' wanI'. qatlh ram
<qaS>? qatlh <Qoy> potlh law' Hoch potlh puS?
> >> 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.
munuQ qechmeyvam. *Direct quote* rur. rapbe' 'ach rurqu'. loQ
*SAO* rur je 'ach rurqu'be'. jIHvaD qay'. vIjun vIneH.
> >> >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'.
qaylI'wI' veb yIqem.
toH! DaH qayaj!
Hoch *indirect question* tamlaH *relative clause* 'e' vIHar 'e'
DapIHlaw'. not qechvam vIHar. not *indirect question* 'oSlaH
wa' pab *construction* neH. qechwIj 'oH qechvetlh'e'! chaq
*indirect question* 'oSlaH *QAO* 'e' Dachupmo' maghoH. Dap 'oH
*QAO*'e' 'e' vIHarmo' maghoH.
> >> >> 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'.
'ach Qu'vamvaD muj *QAO*.
> >> 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'...
bal ghorpu'mo' verengan 'ej maqmo' chut <<SuyvaD cha'vatlh
Darseq nobnIS verengan>> verengan San wup la'.
DaH bIQuch'a'?
> >> 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'.
maj.
> >> 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'.
vIpar. nobnISchugh verengan, nuq wuq la'? nobnISbe'chugh
verengan, nuq wuq la'? The presence or absence of necessity
does not cause the officer to decide. If/then = cause/effect.
verengan San wuq la'.
> (Seghvam vay'. chovnatlhvam vIpar).
jIQochbe'.
> >> >> 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...
Qo'noSvo' vulqan ghoSpu''a' Dujmey? Dujmey jey Sov HoD.
> >> >> 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.
lugh *QAO* wej 'e' Da'ang. chaq *indirect question*
vIlajqangchoH 'ach *QAO* vIlajQo'. jImaq'a'? jItlhup'a'?
jISaHbe'. muj *QAO*. jaS bIHarchugh vaj yIghoH! yIvIngQo'!
jI*be polite* 'e' DapIH'a'? jIjatlhnIS'a' <SoS, chochaw''a'?>?
wejpuH.
qajatlh veQ 'oH *QAO*.
chojatlh pabna' 'oH *indirect question*.
qajatlh jIQochbe'qang 'ach veQ 'oHtaH *QAO*!
chojatlh jIQochbe'qang 'ach pabna' 'oHtaH *indirect question*!
qajatlh jIQochbe'qang 'ach mujbej *QAO*!
chojatlh jIQochbe'qang 'ach lughbej *indirect question*!
maghoHHa'taH. yI'IjchoHneS.
> 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).
vIpar. Seng pabvam. vay' yajHa'moH. mu'meywIj vIlo'meH SoHvaD
jIjatlh:
maqlu'DI' pagh toblu'.
DaparHa''a'?
> >> >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.
You have argued that I'm trying to prove that indirect
questions may always be expressed as relative clauses, which
was NOT my point. Most of the early examples people were trying
to call indirect questions actually WERE relative clauses, so I
was arguing that THOSE examples should be expressed as relative
clauses. Meanwhile, I've always felt that if there is something
that can't be expressed as a relative clause, then it should be
expressed with some other grammar.
I RARELY argue that any class of thought needs to be addressed
with only one grammatical construction. Each thought deserves
attention and should be expressed with the best tool the
language has to offer it. You know that is what I believe. That
has consistently been my Prime Directive with the language.
My point is that all indirect questions can be expressed by
valid Klingon grammar. I honestly believe that QAO is NOT valid
Klingon grammar, so I've given examples of all your indirect
questions without any temptation to use QAO.
You keep saying that you think QAO may be the global solution
for all indirect questions, but never express a QAO example
that can't be recast better in more acceptable Klingon grammar.
I am not merely proclaiming that QAO is not valid or necessary.
I'm PROVING that it is not necessary, over and over again and I
continue to be willing to do so, even though I'm quite amazed
at how many times you can respond, "Well, okay, maybe that
wasn't a very good example. How about THIS one?"
This has gone back and forth quite a few times and you are
still failing to come up with an example you won't later say,
"Well, maybe that wasn't a very good example..." Evidence is
building that there aren't any good examples toward proving
your point.
QAO requires a substantial expansion of an explicitly limited
pronoun. {'e'} has to be the object of a verb and it has to
represent the previous sentence. That is all it can do. You
want its function to expand to include representing sentences
relating to the previous sentence (but not the actual sentence
itself) and you argue that this expansion is necessary because
QAO is the one dependable way to express indirect questions.
I argue that it is not a dependable way of expressing anything.
Nothing proposed so far that it is supposed to express cannot
be quite gracefully expressed with other grammatical
constructions. Yes, it sometimes requires changing some of the
words. Translation requires that, especially when one is
intentionally seeking out problem areas of the language.
So, I guess you can continue to seek that elusive, perfect
example of an indirect question that can perfectly be expressed
by QAO and cannot be addressed by any other grammatical
construction, and I'll continue to recast the examples using
other constructions.
Maybe we need another acronym, like KLBC and KSRP to mark as
special the perpetual thread relating to QAO and indirect
questions.
So, have I proclaimed too much this time? I don't think I made
any reference to authority, deserved or otherwise. I state my
beliefs and am willing to face every challenge you wish to
offer. It would be nice to feel there was some acknowledgement
for the raw number of examples I have been able to recast
without any real failure to express the intended thought.
If there are failures, I would attribute them to my own
shoddiness more than to any inability of the language to
express indirect questions without expanding the definition of
{'e'}. And I'm not trying to shout you down. Please continue.
Likely, I'll still be here to respond, unless my personal life
finds some means to actually get worse than it has already
become. I see that it apparently has that goal, but it may have
exhausted its available means to further that goal for the time
being.
jIDo'choHchugh.
> ~mark
charghwI'