tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Sat Nov 08 21:17:26 1997
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
Re: plans
- From: "Neal Schermerhorn" <[email protected]>
- Subject: Re: plans
- Date: Sun, 9 Nov 1997 00:16:06 -0500
Note: Complete refutation of QAO contained herein!
ghItlh David Crowell:
>The human knows who took the money
This can be translated: <Huch nge'bogh ghot'e' qIHpu' Human> for one sense,
and for the other sense, <Huch nge'bogh ghot'e' ngu'laH Human>.
>Quark knows the thief, because the thief is either Rom or Nog,
>and he knows both of them.
>However he just does not know who the thief is.
<nIHwI' qIHpu' *Quark* 'ach nIHwI' ngu'laHbe' neH>
There is no ambiguity in differentiating between these concepts using
existing grammar and vocabulary. No nbeed for a new hammer here.
>A few languages do use different verbs to distinguish difference.
Clearly Klingon is one of them. Your relative clause examples can be
translated with <qIHpu'> and your indirect questions with <ngu'laH>.
ghItlh ghunchu'wI' David je:
>> {nIHwI' qIHta'be' Human 'ach nIHwI' ngu'laH Human.}
>> Paris hasn't met the thief, but Paris can identify the thief.
>But maybe Paris has met the thief, perhaps not. He might have ordered
>some food from Nog, and a drink from Rom.
I see ghunchu'wI' has thought along the same lines - majQa'! A semantic
argument - is 'ordering a drink' equal to 'meeting' someone? I think not. Or
perhaps you mean to say that Paris doesn't know the theif's name. <nIHwI'
pong Sovbe' *Paris*>. Regardless, if his verb was <legh>, I would agree with
you, David. But when two people meet, they learn who each other are, not
just 'encounter' one another. 'Ordering a drink' is merely an encounter - to
meet someone is to know them. ghunchu'wI''s example is correct.
So:
-- Huch nge'bogh ghot'e' qIHpu' *Quark* 'ach Huch nge'bogh ghot'e'
ngu'laHbe' (or ...'ach nIHwI' ngu'laHbe')
-- nIHwI' luqIHpu' *Rom* *Nog* je 'ej nIHwI' ngu'laH (Not as clear as I'd
like - technically, if Nog stole the money, has he 'met himself'? There are
other wordings, and we all can find them easily enough. I'll leave this for
now.)
-- not nIHwI' qIHpu' *Tuvok* 'ej nIHwI' ngu'laHbe'
-- not nIHwI' qIHpu' *Paris* 'ach nIHwI' ngu'laH. (Assuming that once you've
met someone, you know them.)
I need to be a bit critical here. Now, not only are people presenting a
nonsensical variation on a construction, they are also presenting mock
'lapses' in the language it can be used to fill. Seems to me this whole
Question As Object debate is based on a 'what if' - "What if a question was
the first sentence in the SAO construction?"
o See the innumerable posts which demonstrate that objects must be nouns,
statements are capable of being nouns, and questions are not.
o The only interpretations of the QAO variant of the SAO construction to
date have used either the question word or the answer to the question as the
object, and not the sentence as a whole, as is required.
o The resulting translations are usually using English relative pronouns
which are homophonic to the English question words, which leads one to the
conclusion that people are mistakenly using the Klingon question words as a
source of non-existent relative pronomial adverbials.
o The only reasonable deduction is this - There is no way to legally use a
question as an object. (The only exception is when using verbs of saying
<qechvamvaD maja'chuq ghorgh 'e' wImev jIja'> - and this is so different
from normal SAO, it is hardly an exception.)
If anyone can debate the above points, please do. But the usage of QAO is
not acceptable Klingon, as is evidenced by the wide rejection the concept
has received based on purely grammatical grounds. I really hope that this
issue will pass very soon.
Qermaq