tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Sat Nov 08 21:07:32 1997

Back to archive top level

To this year's listing

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

Re: Question as object

In a message dated 97-11-07 02:38:37 EST, Qermaq writes:

<< See - it's true, questions are sentences. And yes, it is 'possible' that a
 question sentence could serve as an object. But - and this is what folks
 seem to miss - in order to do this we need to know how it'll be interpreted.
 There's no reason it would be interpreted any differently than a statement
 sentence as object. charghwI', others, and I have already demonstrated that
 this interpretation is at best, very, very strange - most probably,
 nonsense.
 
 Now, let's look at it this way - How *do* we express the sentence "I know
 who killed the captain."? Well, the basic sentence is "I know (him/her)" -
 <vISov>. Who and whom are expressed using -bogh. "the person who killed the
 captain" - <HoD HoHbogh ghot'e'> - now we get, by assembling the pieces -
 <HoD HoHbogh ghot'e' vISov>. Plain And Simple.
 
 Now, since this translates the concept SO WELL, my question for all of you
 is this - Why find another way to do it? This way is unarguably correct,
 while the QAO supposition is being argued against by the most experienced
 Klingon speakers ever. Does this send a message to any of you? The relative
 clause construction IS a superior tool for saying "I know who killed the
 captain". Even if you were to allow for the QAO supposition to be
 acceptable, the -bogh version is simply superior.
  >>


peHruS here:

Now we are reaching an agreement.  I have never, never been against the
{bogh} construction.  I even have used it throughout this discussion.

I am glad that Qermaq has recognized my true stand regarding TKD 6.2.5.

peHruS     batlh manganchchuqtaH

Back to archive top level