tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Sun Nov 09 12:35:36 1997
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
Re: questions and 'e'
- From: "William H. Martin" <[email protected]>
- Subject: Re: questions and 'e'
- Date: Sun, 9 Nov 1997 15:36:40 -0500 (Eastern Standard Time)
- Priority: NORMAL
On Fri, 7 Nov 1997 11:43:51 -0800 (PST) Scott Murphy
<[email protected]> wrote:
> I am very impressed with the arguments against using questions in
> 'e' constructions. However, I remain unconvinced. One problem I have is
> the notion that using 'e' to refer to questions only refers to the first
> word. This is not the case. If it were, there would be no reason to
> include the rest of the question.
You could just as easily argue that relative clauses can't exist
because if the main clause only uses the head noun, there would
be no reason to include the rest of the relative clause. Your
confusion (and it is really beginning to make me weary repeating
this) is that you are using a question word as if it were the
head noun of a relative clause.
> I think a very good point was made that
> chay' functions like an adverb.
{chay'} is treated grammatically as an adverbial in its
placement in a sentence, but its presence in a sentence
transforms that sentence into a question. The fundamental nature
of the entire sentence is transformed by the presence of {chay'}.
> This is quite illuminating. So:
> chay' qaS 'oH = it happens how?
Your wording sounds awkward here because you are trying to avoid
fully recognizing that a question is functionally different from
a statement. Questions and statements are both sentences, but
one cannot be used exactly like the other in all environments.
> with 'how' functioning as a 'blank' adverb, to be filled in with an answer.
> By the same token, we can say:
> nom qaS 'oH = it happens quickly
> This time there is no blank.
To state this more clearly, {chay' qaS 'oH?} is a question. {nom
qaS 'oH} is a statement. Your inventive use of the word "blank"
is irrelavant.
> We know how it happens: quickly. But the
> sentence structure is exactly the same grammatically.
That is just a happy accident of Klingon grammar, just like the
happy accident that relative pronouns look just like question
words in English. Meanwhile, English questions are not worded
exactly like statements. We change the word order around. Also,
Klingon relative pronouns are not exactly like question words
because, well, Klingon doesn't HAVE any relative pronouns.
Instead, Klingons use the {-bogh} suffix on verbs to create
Relative Clauses. It is a wholly unrelated grammar to Sentence
As Object.
> Further, we can
> say: nom qaS 'oH 'e' vISov = I know that it happens quickly. 'quickly' is
> functioning in exactly the same manner as in "nom qaS 'oH".
Notice your use of the word "that" and the punctuation of the
whole construction as a statement.
> Now, since
> they are both adverbs, why should the rules be different for "chay'"?
> chay' qaS 'oH 'e' viSov = I know how it happens.
No, it doesn't. If anything, it means:
"I know that how does it happen?"
In other words, it is gibberish. We don't know how to bring the
syntax of the question across in the translation. Combine a
statement about a question, and I strongly suspect the question
mark has to come through in the translation, but it doesn't
really make sense here. And {chay' qaS 'oH} does not mean "It
happens how." That would be a statement. It is a question,
translated as "How does it happen?" That is the translation you
need to apply to the QAO as well, and it doesn't make any sense
here. You forget that it is a question because it is spelled the
same way as the relative pronoun.
> More precisely, by TKD (pg. 66) it is:
> chay' qaS 'oH 'e' viSov = How did it happen? I know that.
But you DON'T know that. You don't know the question. What you
know is the ANSWER to the question. When you use {'e'} with
{Sov} and a statement, what you know is the statement, not
something related to the statement. You know the statement
itself. When you know the answer to a question, you don't know
the question itself. You know something related to the question,
which is its answer. That is what is wrong with this idea.
> Which expresses, at a deep level, the notion that I know the manner in
> which this event occurred.
No. That is the ANSWER to the question, not the question itself.
How can you know a question? You can ASK a question. You can
WONDER about a question. You can know the ANSWER to a question,
but you can't KNOW a QUESTION. It is gibberish to presume that
you can.
> The expanded version does, I concur, reflect
> the version which can accurately be expressed with -bogh. And, I agree
> that the -bogh version IS more precise and unambiguous. However, unlike
> Lojban, Klingon isn't afraid of vagueness or ambiguity.
Vagueness and ambiguity has little to do with this. You are
inventing an invalid grammar to attempt to mimick relative
phrases in English through a poorly thought out variation on
Sentence As Object in Klingon.
> Scott
charghwI'