tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Sun Nov 09 00:24:43 1997

Back to archive top level

To this year's listing



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

Fwd: Re: plans




In a message dated 11/9/97 1:17:32 AM, [email protected] wrote:

<< pleaes send how to get out fo this to [email protected]>>

What the Hell is <<pleaes>> and <<fo>>?
---------------------
Forwarded message:
From:	[email protected] (WATT FAMILY)
Sender:	[email protected]
Reply-to:	[email protected]
To:	[email protected] (Multiple recipients of list)
Date: 97-11-09 03:17:32 EST

 pleaes send how to get out fo this to [email protected]

----------
> From: Neal Schermerhorn <[email protected]>
> To: Multiple recipients of list <[email protected]>
> Subject: Re: plans
> Date: Sunday, 9 November 1997 15:37
> 
> 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
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 



Back to archive top level