tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Fri Jan 31 19:41:44 1997
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
RE: Phrases
- From: "David Trimboli" <[email protected]>
- Subject: RE: Phrases
- Date: Fri, 31 Jan 97 23:02:49 UT
January 30, 1997 7:57 PM EST, jatlh 'Iwvan:
> > You've done it right here! (On purpose?)
>
> No, because I'm not convinced that {DaHjaj nuqDaq bIjaH DaneH} is a
> question-as-object (although my construction is).
>
> > Besides the fact that you'd probably have to use {qatlh 'e' DaQub},
>
> Yes, it was very unsportsmanlike of MO not to tell us what happens
> when the `second sentence' starts with an adverb or an oblique noun.
> -- The first version of that went {qatlh [qay' qachvam] 'e' DaQub},
> which I abandoned in view of the possible ambiguity with {[qatlh qay'
> qachvam] 'e' DaQub}. (Note that in English _why do you think this
> construction is problematic_ is also ambiguous: _why_ can refer to
> the nature of the problem or the reason for your scepticism.)
I think there was at least one example where he put {reH} after {'e'} (a
SkyBox card), and there was also {reH DIvI' Duj vISuv vIneH} in Star Trek V.
I also think there were examples (probably in TKW) with the adverbial coming
before the {'e'}.
> > you've got a question as object.
>
> Actually, I think I've got a sentence as object. It happens to be
> an interrogative sentence, but _tKD_ 6.2.5 doesn't say that it must
> be a declarative one. (None the less, I'm keeping my mind open to
> the possibility of such a ban; indirect questions may indeed work
> in a different way, or not work at all.)
TKD doesn't say a lot of things.
Let me get out of indirect-question-hating mode for a moment and think about
this. {'Iv SoH 'e' vISov}. Apparently, the object of {vISov}, that which I
know, is the *answer* to the question, not the question itself. But since
{'Iv} is simply a sorta kinda pronoun, I guess this makes some sense; the
pronoun is taking the place of what needs to be there. {pIn SoH 'e' vISov}
"You're the boss."
How about the other sort of questions? {qatlh bIjaH 'e' vISov} for "I know
why you went." One *could* argue that {qatlh} is a sorta kinda pronoun taking
the place of some sentence fragment with {-mo'} on the end of it (either noun
or verb). {bIghungmo' bIjaH 'e' vISov}. "You went because you were hungry."
{chay' bIjaH 'e' vISov} for "I know how you went." This one poses more of a
problem, I think. {chay'} doesn't seem to me to be explainable as a pronoun
to me, unless you're talking about an adverbial (of course, the ball's still
out there as to *exactly* what {chay'} means). Of course, if it does simply
cover for an adverbial, you could be replacing {QIt bIjaH 'e' vISov} "I know
you went slowly."
{'ar} is weird because it come after the noun it modifies, and not before,
where the number would be.
How about simple interrogative-suffixed sentences? There's also no
prohibition on those. {juHDaq bIjaH'a' 'e' vISov}. I guess this would be
closest to saying "I know whether or not you go home." I know the *answer* to
this question, not the question itself!
Well, I'm going to turn my indirect-object-hating device back on now. There's
enough uncertainty as to what's really happening here that I want to avoid it
all completely. Somehow, it just doesn't *feel* right to me.
--
SuStel
Beginners' Grammarian
Stardate 97086.8