tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Sat Nov 08 22:05:05 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 21:37:55 EST, charghwI' writes:

<< 
 'Iv HoH HoD 'e' vISov.
 
 "I know who did the captain kill?"
 
 This doesn't make much sense. You can see that, so you want to 
 get rid of the question mark:
 
 "I know who did the captain kill."
 
 And while you are at it, you'd like to fudge the words around 
 some:
 
 "I know who the captain killed."
 
 Now, if you REALLY didn't have to think about what that second 
 sentence meant or what kind of sentence it was, why did you have 
 to get rid of the question mark and move the words around. If we 
 express this as a REAL Sentence As Object, the content would 
 have to be somewhat different:
 
 verengan HoH HoD 'e' vISov.
 
 Now we take the first sentence as is:
 
 The captain killed the Ferengi.
 
 Now add the {'e' vISov} and without modification of the original 
 sentence, we get:
 
 I know that the captain killed the Ferengi. >>
============================================================
peHruS here:

charghwI', you tend to overlook other elements while you are debating.  Even
though you have some very good ideas regarding tlhIngan Hol, you are really
overlooking important evidence on both sides.  That is not good in a debate
such as this.  

First, you need to use better English!!

"I know "whom" the captain killed." is correct.

Now, before analyzing why that still fits as a QAO, we need to look at TKD
p69.  "For {'Iv} and {nuq} the question word fits into the sentence int he
position that would be occupied by the answer."

"Both {'Iv} and {nuq} are trerated as nouns as far as the pronomial prefixws
are concerned."

Okay, let's analyze.  The question words are not nouns.  But, they are
treated as nouns grammatically. They can be the object or subject of a
sentence!!

Next, the meaty debate:  The captain killed; I know whom.  Using this
English, we can see this is two sentences, obviously.  This meets every
criterion set by TKD 6.2.5.

Next, a concession:  because TKD does not say that {qatlh}, {ghorgh},
{chay'}, {'ar}, and {nuqDaq} are treated grammatically as nouns, nor is it
clearly stated that they fill the position of the noun in the answer, answers
as objects attempting to parallel the questions really does not have a TKD
basis. If anything, TKD does state that {nuqDaq} acts as a locative.  The
parallel answer for {nuqDaq jaghpu' HoH yaS 'e' DaSov'a'} (if such a
construction were allowed at all) would be {may' yoSDaq jaghpu' HoH yaS 'e'
vISov}.  Without emphasis on the place, this answer tells what the subject
did and where.

Back to archive top level