tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Thu Nov 06 21:18:34 1997
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
Re: plans
David Crowell <[email protected]> writes:
>From the Esperanto grammar {Plena Analiza Gramatiko}
>(I must apologize, because for the moment I cannot find a grammar in
>English that talks about indirect questions and relative pronouns)
This information isn't really very useful in the "question as object"
debate. How Esperanto or English or even Ewokese deal with indirect
questions and relative pronouns doesn't tell us anything about the
way Klingon does.
>A indirect question consists of an interrogative sentence, transformed
>in a phrase such that it is asked about in another sentence. I add this:
><The whole prase is referred in the sentence *in which it contains*.>
Can you give an example of such an "indirect question"? Whatever it is,
it sounds to me like the "He knows who hit the child" example isn't one.
This example is plainly a statement, not a question of any sort.
>But,
>a relative phrase is a phrase with a relative pronoun (or without one in
>English) that is referring to an antecedent (or a precedent in some
>languages). <One element in the relative phrase is referring to another
>element in phrase which it contains.>
In English, a relative phrase has a relative pronoun. In Klingon, a
relative clause has the suffix {-bogh} on the verb. Klingon uses the
verb suffix; it does not use relative pronouns.
>In all the languages I have studied (and I haven't studied just a few)
>the interrogative words are used in indirect questions.
In all the non-Klingon languages *I* have studied (admittedly few), the
interrogative pronouns are mirrored by similar or identical relative
pronouns. The meanings behind the two uses are, however, quite distinct.
>But there is a difference in meaning between an indirect question and a
>relative clause.
I'm curious about this. Please provide an example of each and show what
you mean.
[much story snipped]
>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.
Huh? Ignoring the Klingon grammar for a moment, what distinction are
you trying to make between the two clauses in English? They sound like
they are contradicting one another. Either Quark knows the thief or he
does not, right? How can it be both?
To address the grammar, the first phrase is quite clear. The bartender
knows the person who took away the money (or he knows the money which
was taken away, but that interpretation is much less likely).
The second phrase looks like it's trying to say the opposite while using
the (cough) misbegotten (cough) "question as object" structure.
"Who took away the money? The bartender doesn't know that."
This almost works, except for the fact that {'e'} is supposed to be used
specifically to make the *entire* first sentence the object of the second
one. The object of "The bartender doesn't know..." isn't a question about
the taking away. The thing which the bartender does not know is the noun
which is specified by being the person who took away money.
The way English phrases ideas like this is very confusing to someone who
hasn't yet developed the knack of stripping away the words to recognize
the bare ideas. The important thing to concentrate on is that there is
simply no question being asked, not even rhetorically. {'Iv} does not
carry the meaning that "who" has here.
>Huch nge'bogh ghot Sovbe' Human 'ach Huch nge' 'Iv 'e' Sov Human.
>Paris doesn't know the one who took the money but Paris knows who took
>the money.
Same question: does Paris know the thief or doesn't he?
Oh, wait, perhaps I see what you're trying to do. Are you attempting to
distinguish between two different meanings of the word "know"? Instead
of misusing interrogatives as if they were relative pronouns in an attempt
to mirror the English phrasing, why not choose more precise words?
{nIHwI' qIHta'be' Human 'ach nIHwI' ngu'laH Human.}
Paris hasn't met the thief, but Paris can identify the thief.
-- ghunchu'wI'