tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Thu Jul 03 12:55:51 1997
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
Re: MUSH
According to [email protected]:
>
> In a message dated 97-06-26 14:24:40 EDT, ~mark writes:
>
> << Personally, I happen to like using question-words as you do, though I make
> a point of not thinking of them or trying to represent them as relative
> clauses. I'd write "chay' vIlo'? 'e' vISovbe'" punctuating it to really
> look like "How do I use it? I don't know that," >>
>
> I have just been fortunate enough to review some of the very early writing of
> Capt. Krankor, who states with examples: {chay' Dochvam vIlo' 'e' vISovbe'},
> eg. He goes on to point out that these are actually two sentences, ref. TKD
> Sec 6.2.5.
>
> In conclusion, Capt. Krankor notes that the two sentences are run together,
> appearing as one.
>
> peHruS
As much as I respect Krankor, I simply don't agree with him on
this issue. To me, you are stating that you do not know the
question. You seem be believe that you are saying that you do
not know the ANSWER to the question. I see these as totally
different things. That's why I DON'T tend to use questions in
this kind of Sentence As Object constructions and prefer other
grammatical constructions instead.
Dochvam vIlo'meH mIw vISovbe'.
Do you have a problem with this casting of your statement? Do
you honestly believe it to be inferior to your grafting a
question onto "I don't know that."?
If nothing else, I'd pick a different verb, like:
chay' Dochvam vIlo' 'e' vIjanglaHbe'.
To me, using a question as the first sentence in a Sentence As
Object construction is not grammatically incorrect. It's just
that most of the constructions I've seen don't make sense
symantically. The syntax is fine. The results just don't MEAN
anything. They appear to mean something because if you lay
those words out in English, they resemble English sentences
which we use every day. Meanwhile, the MEANING does not hang
together if you consider how Klingon grammar works.
Is this not a worthwhile, fresh perspective? Please consider it
before sweeping it aside. I know that I seem to be sweeping the
original perspective aside, but in fact, I've been looking at
this particular point for a few years now and considered this
perspective many times. I just don't agree with it, after a
great deal of consideration.
charghwI'