tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Sat Nov 08 23:49:59 1997

Back to archive top level

To this year's listing



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

RE: Sentence as Object



[email protected] on behalf of [email protected] wrote:
> I am trying to point out clearly for you all what TKD 6.2.5 really says.  
You
> have been refusing to believe it.  You merely ramble on about a different
> topic altogether:   relative clauses.  I have always said they work just 
fine
> with the TKD section regarding realtive clauses, TKD 6.2.3.

We are trying to point out that questions as objects just simply don't work 
the way you think they do.

I can ask you "Why is the sky green?" and you would never, ever be able to 
answer that question.

"The sky isn't green.  It's blue."
"But why is the sky green?"
"It isn't green.  It's blue."
"You're avoiding my question!  Tell me why the sky is green!"
"It isn't green --"
"Stop rambling on about blueness.  I want to know why it's green."

Just because you can say something allowable in the stated rules of a language 
doesn't mean that what you've said makes any sense.

> You understand now?  There are two completely distinct sections in Klingon
> grammar.  But, do you see that you, not I, have been trying to confuse
> them???  Equate them?

Utterly incorrect.  We are saying that YOU are confusing them.  We claim that 
questions as objects do not do this thing that you say they do.  We say that 
the function you are trying to perform is exactly the function of relative 
clauses, and has no business in a Sentence As Object.  You are saying that 
these two distinct grammatical functions operate correctly in both relative 
clauses and (hypothetical) questions as objects, and result in the same 
meaning.  You are the one equating them.

SuStel
Stardate 97857.2



Back to archive top level