tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Thu Nov 06 05:50:08 1997
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
RE: Sentence as Object
- From: "David Trimboli" <[email protected]>
- Subject: RE: Sentence as Object
- Date: Thu, 6 Nov 97 13:45:04 UT
[email protected] on behalf of [email protected] wrote:
> According to TKD, Sentence As Object is that which {'e'} represents. TKD
> does NOT say that the sentence must be a statement, nor that it must not be
a
> question. TKD explicitly states that the "sentence" is the object.
If you apply the rules to any situation without thinking about those rules,
you're going to be missing those very important nuances which make life
interesting.
TKD doesn't mention a lot of things, because (a) it's only an introductory
text, and (b) Okrand never could have imagined the Pandora's box he was
opening when he wrote it. But it's here now, and you can't just cudgel it
however you want in the name of the rules. Look at the available evidence,
that being the grammar of Klingon which we DO know. Especially the enormous
difference of construction between {-bogh} clauses and question words.
charghwI' has given a beautifully clear explanation of exactly why questions
don't work as objects in Klingon, and the ONLY real argument I've heard
against it, ever, is "But TKD says we can use sentences as objects, and
questions are sentences, so they can be objects."
But even if you do not choose to stop forcing square pegs through round holes,
remember: there are many canonical instances of statements as objects, there
are none whatsoever of questions as objects, and Okrand has said he's not
ready to address the question as object problem. Your QAO is hanging on by
the slimmest thread. If you're to save it, give us a *grammatical* treatment
of your argument, as charghwI' has done of his.
> We do not need to take just one word of the first sentence and say that the
> Klingon pronoun {'e'} does/does not refer to it. {'e'} refers to the first
> sentence, in its entirety, no matter what kind of sentence that is.
charghwI' is not choosing this word just to make a point. If you think about
the *meaning* of the sentence, the meaning in its *structure*, you'll see that
the question words in such a construction are inevitably the true referent of
{'e'} and {net}. This is not allowed, because {'e'} refers to a sentence, not
one element of a sentence. In {puq qIp 'Iv 'e' luSov}, a question as object
construction, you're really saying "They know who," "They know the person who
[did it]." They don't know about hitting, and they don't know about the child
who was hit, they just know "who." This is a relative pronoun in English.
The English relative pronoun "who" is translated with {-bogh} in Klingon. If
you stated {puq qIb loD 'e' luSov} "They know that the man hit the child,"
they DO know about the man, they DO know about the hitting, and they DO know
about the child. They know all about the action that these actors were
involved in. That is what Sentence as Object is all about.
> That is the beauty. Klingon does not even follow the same thinking patterns
> English grammar does.
Right, so stop thinking in an English mode, and get into a Klingon mode.
Speaking of Klingon modes of thought, I've always believed that rhetorical
questions are very un-Klingon. Questions as objects can begin to make some
sense, at the cost of being entirely rhetorical.
SuStel
Stardate 97849.6