tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Sun Nov 09 12:35:51 1997

Back to archive top level

To this year's listing

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

Re: Question-Relative Clause

On Thu, 6 Nov 1997 22:57:09 -0800 (PST) [email protected] wrote:
...
> peHruS here:
> 
> I am not saying that question words do the same job as {bogh} constructions.
>  I am saying that TKD 6.2.5 is very clear, to me, that {'e'} constructions
> are two separate sentences and that {'e'} is the Object of the second
> sentence; and, that same {'e'} refers back to the entire first sentence.
>  {bogh} constructions are valid.  I do not disagree one wit.
 
In TKD, Okrand explains that in some cases, something that is 
said in one sentence in English is expressed in two sentences in 
Klingon, and it goes on to explain the Sentence As Object 
construction from there. While it is true that in Klingon, SAO 
is actually two sentences, it is also true that these two 
sentences can then be expressed, when translated, as one 
sentence. This is where your attempt at Question As Object falls 
apart.

If you are trying to argue that QAO has to be valid because the 
two sentences can exist placed next to each other in Klingon 
following all the rules of Klingon grammar, then the problem 
comes when you try to translate them into one sentence in 
English. The translations you have consistently proposed always 
expresses a relative clause by ignoring the status as question 
and massaging the wording.

Perhaps it would be valid to say:

'Iv qIp HoD? 'e' vIjanglaH.

Who did the captain hit? I can answer that.

Note that this is nothing like:

'Iv qIp HoD 'e' vISov.

The difference is that in my example, I leave the question as a 
question and refer to the question and not its answer in my use 
of the second sentence. Meanwhile, the resulting English 
translation cannot be very clearly stated as one sentence. It 
really works best left as two separate sentences because one is 
a question and the other is a statement and the two do not 
really fit well together in the same sentence in English.

All the QAO proponants thus far have failed to respect this 
fundamental difference between a question and a statement. 
Instead, you have mysteriously transformed questions into 
statements and then inserted them into your translations.

Give it up.

charghwI'

Back to archive top level