tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Thu Nov 06 21:27:28 1997
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
RE: Question-Relative Clause
- From: "David Trimboli" <[email protected]>
- Subject: RE: Question-Relative Clause
- Date: Fri, 7 Nov 97 02:05:50 UT
[email protected] on behalf of Scott Murphy wrote:
> I only
> wanted to give the die-hard "questions are not sentences" people a way to
> deal with this issue WITHOUT getting so emotional about it.
I, for one, am hardly "die-hard" about this. I am fairly convinced.
We are not saying that "questions are not sentences." They most certainly
are. We are saying that the very existence of and grammatical structure of
{-bogh} makes it exceedingly unlikely that question words do the same job it
does.
> >I disagree. This might be a normal way of thinking for English speakers,
> >but that doesn't prove that all languages work this way.
>
> OK. Let's look at a language which works differently. In Russian, to say
> "They don't know how it happened," we say "Oni ne zna'ut, kak eto
> sluchilos'." This is NOT a relative clause construction, but rather a
> sentence-as-object construction.
I don't speak Russian, so I cannot engage you in a discussion on this.
> This being said, I wish to point out (as others have) that nowhere in TKD
> does it say that questions cannot serve as objects of 'e'.
It also doesn't say you can't put {-nIS} on an imperative verb, but I can't
think of a single unmarked context in which to use such a verb. There are
times when the rules don't take into account a special case.
> The sentence "They don't know how this happened," does not
> contain a relative clause. In fact, it doesn't even contain a noun which
> would serve as the head noun.
Okay. It's time for a run-down of English grammar. Definitions and examples
are taken from my American College Dictionary (only including the relevant
entries). [Note: I am NOT saying that because English does such-and-such, so
must Klingon. I am using the English grammar to determine how the Klingon
question words function in a sentence.]
who
--interrogative pronoun (1) what person? (ex) "Who told you so?"
--relative pronoun (3) as a compound relative. (a) the or any person that; any
person, be it who it may
(4) as a simple relative, with antecedent [...] expressed. (a) in clauses
conveying an additional idea: (ex) "We saw men who were at work."
what
-- pronoun (1) interrogative pronoun (a) asking for the specifying of some
thing (not person): (ex) "What is your name?"
(2) relative pronoun (a) (as a compound relative) that which: (ex) "This is
what he says," "I will send what was promised."
(e) (as a simple relative) that, which, or who: now regarged as non-standard
English except in the possessive "whose" and the phrase "but what."
when
-- adverb (1) at what time: (ex) "When are you coming?"
-- conjunction (2) at what time: (ex) "to know when to be silent."
(3) at the time that (ex) "when we were young." (4) at any time, or whenever:
(ex) "He is impatient when he is kept waiting."
where
-- adverb (1) in or at what place? (ex) "Where is he?" "Where do you live?"
(4) to what place, point, end, or whither? (ex) "Where are you going?"
-- conjunction (6) in or at what place, part, point, etc.: (ex) "find where he
is, or where the trouble is." (7) in or at the place, part, point, etc., in
or at which: (ex) "The book is where you left it." (10) to what or whatever
place, or to the or any place in which, or wherever: (ex) "I will go where you
go."
why
-- adverb (1) for what? for what cause, reason, or purpose? (2) for what
cause or reason. (3) for which, on account of which (after "reason," etc.):
(ex) "the reason why he refused." (4) the reason for which: (ex) "That is why
I raised this question again."
how
-- adverb (1) in what way or manner; by what means: (ex) "How did it happen?"
(2) to what extend, degree, etc.: (ex) "how much?" [note: not quite the same
as Klingon {'ar}: a clearer example would be "How much have you grown?"]
(5) for what reason, why.
***
Okay. Now let's compare it to Klingon.
'Iv
This is "who" definition (1) only. {SoHvaD ngoDvam jatlh 'Iv?} "Who told you
so?"
Definition (4) falls under the jurisdiction of {-bogh}, as I'm sure everyone
will agree. {vumtaHbogh loD DIlegh}
[Note: that headless relative clause on KCD would fall under definition (3).
Klingon {'Iv} is an interrogative pronoun, not a relative pronoun.
nuq
Klingon {nuq} is the equivalent of defition (1a), an interrogative pronoun.
Definition (2b) is again covered in Klingon {-bogh}. We no longer use "what"
as a relative pronoun ("the targ what ate the glob fly"), we use "which" ("the
targ which ate the glob fly" {ghIlab ghew Soppu'bogh targh'e'})
Klingon {nuq} is an interrogative pronoun, not a relative pronoun.
ghorgh
This is where it starts to get interesting. Klingon {ghorgh} is obviously
equivalent to definition (1), and is even placed in the same place as
adverbials, which would agree nicely with the English definition's being an
adverb.
But look at definition two! It's classified as a conjunction! I don't know
if there's some more accurate way that grammarians classify this, but this use
of "when" is not an adverb!
Now, look at this: in the argument that question-as-objecters (Big-enders and
Little-enders?) have put forth, one could say in Klingon {ghorgh tamnIS 'e'
Sov} for "He knows when to be silent." You'd explain it as "When does he need
to be silent? He knows that." But in English, we're actually looking at
totally different grammar, and this is throwing off your translations! We
have no conjunction of this sort in Klingon! It simply doesn't exist!
Therefore, the only alternative is to recast the sentence using tools we do
have!
[By the way, definition (3) of "when" is just the Klingon suffix {-DI'}.]
Klingon {ghorgh} functions much as an adverbial does, and is not a
conjunction. Remember, {'e'} and {net} are *pronouns*, not conjunctions.
nuqDaq
We all know that Klingon {nuqDaq} fits into "where" definition (1). {nuqDaq
ghaHtaH?} It's an adverb in English, and, by golly, the Klingon word goes in
front of the sentence, just like an adverbial does!
Definition (2) is another conjunction, just like in {ghorgh}. The question as
object proponents would argue that {nuqDaq ghaHtaH 'e' yItu'} would be an
appropriate translation of "Find where he is." Again, the English is
misleading because "where" is not here an adverb, but a conjunction. Klingon
just doesn't have this type of conjunction. We must recast: {DaqDaj yItu'}.
qatlh
Another interesting case. Definitions (1) and (2) of English "why" seem to me
to be the same; I can't tell the difference. But they are both adverbs. In
Klingon, {qatlh} comes at the beginning of a sentence. Coincidence? I think
not. That's where the adverbials go.
Definition (3) is also called an adverb, but here we get something very
interesting. Question as object proponents might argue that one may say
{qatlh ruchQo' 'e' luSov} for "They know why he won't do it." At first
glance, this seems to work correctly in both languages. But look closely at
definition (3). "for which, on account of which." The definition uses the
relative pronoun "which" to define the adverb "why"!!!! This usage is
entirely based on relative pronoun use!!! The only reason it seems to work in
Klingon is that the grammatical constructs which the English phrase "for
which" are made up of are so utterly unconnected in Klingon that you'd never
even *think* of trying to combine them!
Thus, the only solution is, once again, to recast. Please note that there's a
fine piece of "anthropological" evidence to back this one up (if one may use
the word to describe it): TKG 154 has the slang word {mo'} "motive,
motivation, grounds, reason, rational." There's an example sentence, {jaghpu'
mo' wIjanjIS}. Now, the [fictional] natural evolution of Klingon has produced
a slang phrase which does exactly what we've been going on about: finding a
way to say this without resorting to the question as object (which would, in
this case, be {qatlh [action] jaghpu' 'e' wIyajbe'} and you'd need to specify
exactly what the enemy did). Pretty neat, huh?
{qatlh} acts as an adverbial, or an adverb, but one which has nothing to do
with the concept of relative pronouns.
chay'
Most of the definitions of English "how" we should have no trouble with (in
this context). They work as we expect: as an adverb, which is just how
Klingon {chay'} works.
The one possible problem definition is (5), but the last word of that
definition says it all: it's just another way to say "why," and we've just
gone through that one.
{chay'} works like an adverb, but one without anything to do with relative
pronouns.
'ar
Since this is not a single word in English, I cannot analyze its grammatical
function the same way as I have above with the other words. It acts something
like a Klingon number, but on the wrong side of the noun, and with a rule
about the plurality of the noun. Perhaps it might also be analyzed as an
adjectivally-acting verb. However, I think given the significant problems
with question as object shown above, any converts will be highly skeptical of
using {'ar} in a sentence as object construction.
-'a'
There's one other construction, and because of the different grammar of
English I can't analyze it as I did above. An example would be {QongtaH'a'
'e' luSovbe'} for "They didn't know if he was sleeping." In this case, there
are many recasts available, but I cannot show through grammar that any
mistranslation is being applied. Additional analyses would be welcome.
**PHEW**! That was a lot of work. Did I convince anyone, or was I wasting
all this typing time?
> >There IS no defense for this.
>
> It would be easier to understand your argument if you provided reasoning
> behind such statements.
If you didn't think charghwI''s detailed explanation was enough reasoning,
surely you've seen mine by now? We are providing reason, not making
unsupported claims.
> >wanI'vam qaSmoHpu'bogh ghu''e' luSovbe'
>
> Hmmm...They don't understand the situation which caused this event.
> It sounds great. Excellent! But it seems a little wordy.
wanI'vam qaSmoHpu'bogh ghu''e' luSovbe'
12 syllables.
"They did not know how this had happened."
9 syllables. A 25% improvement in speed. Not much. Speed can't be your
criteron.
Surely it can't be smooth translations either, or else your clunky
"Find out where he is!"
is less elegant than
{DaqDaj yItu'}
Each sentence is unique. Wordiness is found in both languages.
> Notice also that
> TKD says that 'e' is often used with verbs such as" know", "see". The
> verb I used was "know". It seems to fit TKD's criteria.
This is irrelevant. The choice of verbs used is not in question here (if
you'll pardon the pun).
After you have made sure to follow the rules, you must make sure what you're
doing makes sense. There's no rule which says I have to drive slowly if I
pass my house, which is on a narrow, hilly, single-lane road, but it would
still be madness for me to zoom past my house at 30 miles per hour, the
neighborhood speed limit.
SuStel
Stardate 97851.0