tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Fri Nov 07 22:38:18 1997
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
Re: Plans
ja' peHruS:
>According to TKD 6.2.5 there are {pagh} number of examples showing that {'e'}
>translates as "that which". We merely translate such sentences back into
>English with "that" or "which" because that's what seems right to us in
>English. That does not make it right in tlhIngan Hol.
You lost me here. We translate *relative clauses* using "that" or "which"
as relative pronouns, specifying something about a noun. When the noun is
a person, we translate the clause with "who" instead.
We translate {'e'} and {net} using "that" as a simple pronoun which stands
for the previous sentence. English often lets us omit the word "that" in
the completed translation, but it always lets us keep it.
>Meanwhile, please do not construe that I reject the {bogh} construction. I
>believe in it, too. I am merely attempting to point out, ever so clearly,
>exactly how MO has already defined "Sentences As Objects".
The only thing you have clearly pointed out is that there is no explicit
prohibition against using a question as the first sentence of a SAO. You
back up that point by insisting unneccessarily that a question is still a
sentence.
Nobody is saying that a proposed Question As Object fails because questions
are not sentences. Questions *are* sentences, no debate necessary. The
failure of the construction occurs because in every one of the examples of
a Question As Object given so far, the {'e'} pronoun has been referring to
the *question word* instead of the *question*, and the apparent question is
really a relative clause specifying something about an English pronoun that
has been mistranslated as a Klingon interrogative.
-- ghunchu'wI'