tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Tue Nov 04 11:34:01 1997
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
Re: plans
According to [email protected]:
>
> In a message dated 97-11-03 23:58:18 EST, charghwI' writes:
>
> << 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 is precisely the beauty of the argument of the persons who maintain that
> the entire Question is a Sentence to be considered the Sentence as Object.
> Klingon is different from English, and other languages. According to TKD in
> the section explaining Sentences as Objects, we see not only that Klingons
> are linking two distinct sentences. We have been considering the pronoun
> {'e'} as the Object of the second sentence. This is correct. What charghwI'
> is overlooking is that this one pronoun specifically refers to the entire
> first sentence. It does not matter to a Klingon speaker that the first
> sentence is a statement or a question.
How may I politely point out that you are not paying attention?
Grammar has function. Relative clauses have a function.
Sentence As Object constructions have a function. If you look
at the function of a Sentence As Object construction, you will
notice that it does not match that which you are seeking with
your Question As Object. If you look at the function of a
relative clause you will noticed that it EXACTLY matches what
you are trying to accomplish with your Question As Object
construction.
I don't care how you dissect the syntax of Question As Object
and point out that the words are in the same order as they
would be in a Sentence As Object construction. I don't care if
you consider a question to simply be another kind of sentence
that you can plug into a Sentence As Object construction.
It all comes down to function. What is {'e'} representing? In a
true Sentence As Object construction, it represents the entire
first sentence. In a Questionn As Object construction, it
really represents the question word which is acting as a head
noun for a relative clause. The question wrapped around your
question word is really a relative clause in every functional
sense of the term. You are merely expressing it with the wrong
syntax.
> In conclusion, there is not actually a question of whether we are trying to
> use English relative pronouns. Klingon is different!!!
bImujchu'. It doesn't matter whether or not you are trying to
use English relative pronouns. What matters is that you are in
fact exhibiting the function of a relative clause. The only
reason you fantasize that you can get away with it is that in
English, question words happen to also function as relative
prounouns.
This is the whole point. Klingon does not have relative
pronouns. Instead, it gets the same function out of adding
{-bogh} to the verbs in the relative clauses.
You are trying to argue that I'm confused because of the way
English handles relative pronouns. In fact, YOU are the one
confused by the way English uses the same words as question
words and relative pronouns. If you had a Klingon grammar
mindset, it would never occur to you to use a question word
where you should be using a relative clause.
Instead, you have an English grammar mindset and you are trying
to represent English-like relative clauses with an
English-styled grammar. English relative phrases look more like
Question As Object than they look like Klingon relative
clauses. That is why you are tempted toward this perverse error.
> Klingons look at
> this construction as two separate sentences.
No. Klingons look at this construction as a perverse curiosity
that makes no sense. Except perhaps in Musorska... {{:)>
> The pronoun {'e'} of the
> second sentence does more than link the two sentences; it refers back to the
> whole first sentence.
If you really tried to represent the entire sentence by the
{'e'}, you'd realize that the resulting sentence was gibberish.
Instead, you are representing only the question word, which you
are using as a relative pronoun, identified or described by the
rest of the question, as would be the case with a relative
clause.
> mISqu' charghwI'
Bullshit.
> 'ach yajchoHlaH ghaH 'e' vItIv
qoHna' SoH. chaq tugh ngoDna'vam DaghovchoHlaH.
I know I should be more polite, but you are making it
increasingly apparent that you can't buy a clue. It is one
thing to simply be wrong, but to insist on being wrong and
suggest that I'm confused because I can't become as wrong as
you are...
ghghghghghghghghghghghghghghghghghgh.....
This is not just an opinion. I'm RIGHT, damn it. I've found the
truth and it glows before me and you keep throwing mud at it.
The hairs raise on the back of my neck and I really TRY to calm
down about it...
[sigh]
> peHruS
charghwI'