tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Thu Nov 06 19:25:56 1997
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
Re: Sentence as Object
- From: "William H. Martin" <[email protected]>
- Subject: Re: Sentence as Object
- Date: Thu, 6 Nov 1997 22:26:49 -0500 (Eastern Standard Time)
- Priority: NORMAL
On Wed, 5 Nov 1997 23:28:33 -0800 (PST) [email protected] wrote:
> In a message dated 97-11-04 14:39:01 EST, charghwI' writes:
>
> << 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. >>
>
> You know, charghwI', I really like the way you put forth the argument in the
> abovementioned paragraph. It is a twisted way of SUPPORTING my argument.
No it doesn't. And if you think you have managed an argument in
favor of this being true, well, you haven't.
> Take careful note of the following:
Okay. I'm very carefully noting the following.
> 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.
qay'be'.
> 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.
Well, if you could provide a translation of a question as an
object IN ITS ENTIRETY without removing the question mark,
dropping the "that" and fudging the words around until it looks,
in English, like a relative clause, then perhaps I could begin
to take your argument a little bit seriously. Meanwhile, you
have not managed to do this even once. You just dodge the issue.
You ignore it.
> That is the beauty. Klingon does not even follow the same thinking patterns
> English grammar does. (Grammar is a word you use.)
And you apparently are not following the same thinking patterns
as Klingon grammar does. You are trying to argue that, all
meaning aside, mechanically, you can stuff a question into the
role of a first sentence in a Sentence As Object construction.
This is not an impressive argument. The resulting mash of words
simply lacks cohesive meaning. The decoded word mash sounds
almost like a relative clause if you drop the word "that" and
drop the question mark and fudge the rest of the words around a
little. That is all you have going for you as an argument so far.
> Okay, we need to follow grammar. I am pointing out that the grammar rule for
> Klingon grammarians really has been recorded for us in TKD.
Not impressive. You are just telling us that if we shut off our
minds and ignore the way that this language contains meaning and
mechanically follow a rule with a logical extention that a
question is a kind of sentence and therefore it must be
functional in a Question As Object construction, even if we
can't understand what its meaning would be under those
conditions. It's gibberish, peHruS. Total gibberish. I can
mechanically say {quS vItIn.} I have not violated any
grammatical rules here, but the resulting mash of words is
meaningless. What you are doing make no more sense than this.
> peHruS