tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Fri Nov 07 12:57:24 1997

Back to archive top level

To this year's listing

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]

Re: questions and 'e'

> 	I am very impressed with the arguments against using questions in
> 'e' constructions.  However, I remain unconvinced.  One problem I have is
> the notion that using 'e' to refer to questions only refers to the first
> word. This is not the case.  If it were, there would be no reason to

I don't recall anyone ever saying that.

What has been said, is that in the ENGLISH sentences that are proposed
to be translated by QAO, only one word - namely the answer to the 
question - is the object of the main sentence.

What also has been said, is that having the whole question as an
object to the main verb DOESN'T MAKE ANY SENSE. (semantically, that is;
as has been said also, grammatically there is nothing wrong with it)

> include the rest of the question.  I think a very good point was made that
> chay' functions like an adverb.  This is quite illuminating.  So:
> 	chay' qaS 'oH = it happens how?
> with 'how' functioning as a 'blank' adverb, to be filled in with an answer.
> 	By the same token, we can say:
> 	nom qaS 'oH = it happens quickly
> This time there is no blank.  We know how it happens: quickly.  But the
> sentence structure is exactly the same grammatically.  Further, we can
> say: nom qaS 'oH 'e' vISov = I know that it happens quickly.  'quickly' is
> functioning in exactly the same manner as in "nom qaS 'oH".  Now, since
> they are both adverbs, why should the rules be different for "chay'"?

exactly: why should they?

so with the statement you got:

I know (it happens quickly).

Thus with the question you should get:

I know (it happens how?).

Now, why (or should I say "how") do you get:
> 	chay' qaS 'oH 'e' viSov = I know how it happens.
> More precisely, by TKD (pg. 66) it is:
> 	chay' qaS 'oH 'e' viSov = How did it happen? I know that.

> Which expresses, at a deep level, the notion that I know the manner in

could you explain what you mean by "at a deep level"?
I know the two ENGLISH sentences are equivalent in meaning;
but what does it tell you (or anyone) about the meaning of
any KLINGON sentence/phrase/whatever?

> which this event occurred.  The expanded version does, I concur, reflect
> the version which can accurately be expressed with -bogh.  And, I agree
> that the -bogh version IS more precise and unambiguous.  However, unlike
> Lojban, Klingon isn't afraid of vagueness or ambiguity.
> 
it ("the bogh version") is also known to be translatable
the QAO thingy is gibberish - until you tell me what you mean
by "I know (it happens how?)." i.e. when I ask you
"WHAT is it that you know?" you're going to answer
"It happens how?, is what I know" and NOT
"I know how it happened." 

HomDoq

Back to archive top level