tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Thu Nov 06 19:26:06 1997
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
Re: plans
- From: "William H. Martin" <[email protected]>
- Subject: Re: plans
- Date: Thu, 6 Nov 1997 22:26:59 -0500 (Eastern Standard Time)
- Priority: NORMAL
On Wed, 5 Nov 1997 21:46:20 -0800 (PST) David Crowell
<[email protected]> wrote:
> William H. Martin wrote:
> >
> > 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.
...
> lut:
> Story:
...
> Huch nge'bogh ghot Sov chom, 'ach Huch nge' 'Iv 'e' Sovbe' chom.
> Quark knows the one who took the money, but he doesn't know who took the
> money.
I see the point you are trying to make, but you are failing.
Your second clause after {'ach} is attempting to say:
Huch nge'bogh nuv'e' ngu'laHbe' chom.
What you say instead is something like:
"The bartender does not know that who took away the money?"
Notice that this does not quite make sense. You want to remove
the "that" and remove the question mark and get a relative
clause, but in truth the question "Who took away the money?" and
the relative clause "who took the money" are not at all similar
in meaning even if the English wording is nearly identical, and
it is not valid to require the removal of the word "that" in
order to get meaning out of the translation. All Sentence As
Object translations CAN use the word "that". This one cannot,
which is good evidence that something strange is going on here.
charghwI'