tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Mon Nov 03 20:26:19 1997
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
Re: plans
- From: "William H. Martin" <[email protected]>
- Subject: Re: plans
- Date: Mon, 3 Nov 1997 23:26:57 -0500 (Eastern Standard Time)
- Priority: NORMAL
On Sun, 2 Nov 1997 09:25:24 -0800 (PST) "Mark E. Shoulson"
<[email protected]> wrote:
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
>
> >Date: Sat, 18 Oct 1997 21:36:44 -0700 (PDT)
> >From: [email protected]
> >
> >Is your answer of the question of muHwI' without challenging his grammatical
> >construction a sanction of this construction? muHwI' wrote:
> >
> >chay' tlhIngan Duj chenlu' 'e' vIbej vIneH
> >
> >HoD Qanqor and I have used this construction, but some, including SuStel and
> >~mark, have claimed it is not correct. They have stated that {chay'} and
> >other Klingon question words are not relative clause markers. I still think
> >that we only need to look at the above as two separate sentences, the first
> >being a question.
>
> Careful. I maintain that Klingon question words are not relative clause
> markers (what do you think -bogh is for anyway?), yes, but that doesn't
> preclude constructions that SEEM like relative clause-markers in English.
This is my whole point. I don't care whether your use of
question words as relative clause markers is intentional or not.
The only function that this kind of Question As Object
construction is capable of having is that of a relative clause.
The real object of the second verb is the answer to the
question, which is a noun, exactly like the head noun in a
relative clause. Meanwhile, a REAL Sentence As Object
construction genuinely uses the entire first sentence as object
of the second sentence, not just the head noun in the first
sentence. The question word in your Question As Object
construction is behaving EXACTLY like a head noun of a relative
clause. That's because it IS a relative clause thinly disguised
as a hacked together Question As Object construction, which I
argue is COMPLETELY INVALID.
Sentence As Object has a purpose. Question As Object does not
fulfill the purpose of Sentence As Object. Instead, it attempts
to fulfill the purpose of a Relative Clause. Are the functions
of Sentence As Object and Relative Clause related to one
another? No, they are not! So, trying to relate them through
this Question As Object pseudoconstruction is offensive to the
fundamental grammar of the language! Please desist!
> To me, and to Krankor, for that matter (we've discussed this) something
> like "?'Iv Dalegh 'e' vISovbe'" *could* mean "I don't know who you saw",
> but NOT because 'Iv is a relative clause marker.
The thing you conveniently ignore here is that it doesn't matter
that you claim it is not a relative clause marker because
relative clauses only exist with {-bogh}. You are STILL using it
as a relative clause marker whether you call it that or not. The
object of {vISovbe'} is {'Iv} and {Dalegh} exists only to
fulfill the function more appropriately filled by {Daleghbogh}.
It describes or identifies the person you don't know. This is
not the grammatical function of a Sentence As Object, which
would be more like:
HoD Dalegh 'e' vISovbe'. "I don't know that you saw the
captain." Note that neither you nor the captain are the object
of {vISovbe'}. The entire action of the sentence {HoD Dalegh} is
the object of {vISovbe'}. See?
> Rather, it is two
> sentences, the first being a question, even as you say, but a rhetorical
> one: "Whom did you see? I don't know that."
Can't you see that the thing you don't know is not the question,
but the ANSWER to the question. That answer is a noun. It should
have been stated as a head noun of a relative clause, but it
wasn't. Instead, it is packed into this invalid grammatical
misconstruction. PLEASE STOP DOING THIS! It is noise in the
cosmos! It disrupts the beautiful harmonies of our language!
> This translates most smoothly
> into English as "I don't know whom you saw," but that does NOT mean that
> 'Iv is a relative marker.
Even if that is exactly what you are using it for?
> It's a question-word, used as one, rhetorically
> if you like (in that it doesn't expect an answer). This is not precisely
> the same thing; there are examples where expecting question-words to behave
> like relative markers will not work. In order to make this clear, I like
> to punctuate uses like this as "?'Iv Daleghpu'? 'e' vISovbe'" making it
> very clear that the 'Iv is still a question-word.
Punctuate it however you like. You are still USING it in exactly
the same function as a head noun of a relative clause and you
are failing to use it toward the real function of a Sentence As
Object construction.
> THIS is the use that Qanqor espouses, and I rather like it myself.
wejpuH. yIQubchu'! bIchuS 'e' yImev!
> I don't
> recall SuStel's position, but I do recall that charghwI' doesn't like it at
> all.
Youuuuuuuu betcha!
> And of course there's some logic to that. After all, it is rather
> strange. And one could say that 'e' is being stretched a little.
Just a tad.
> It's
> more like "Whom did you see? I don't know THE ANSWER to that"; can we
> expect that extra meaning from 'e'? I'm willing to buy it, charghwI'
> isn't, and I can see his point of view. Moreover, charghwI', l'Ta`ameihh
> (an Aramaic word used in the Talmud which just plain makes sense here),
> considers this sort of question insufficiently direct and a good candidate
> for recasting, as in the "Duj Dalegh yIngu'!" usage, which has, truth be
> told, been supported by canon in KGT.
Well, while I was glad to see this confirm I was right in a
DIFFERENT argument (that there is no "which" question word and
we can get along just fine without one), I don't think this
addresses this at all. I think all of these Question As Object
constructions should be recast as real relative clauses. That's
how they are functioning. That's how they should be stated.
Have I convinced you yet?
> I'm not sure recasting will be
> general enough, but it remains to be seen.
Well, perhaps someone will come up with a different kind of
Question As Object that I have not considered yet, but all that
I have seen have been masked relative clauses better stated with
{-bogh} verbs.
> ~mark
charghwI'