tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Sun Nov 09 12:36:13 1997
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
Re: Sentence as Object
- From: "William H. Martin" <[email protected]>
- Subject: Re: Sentence as Object
- Date: Sun, 9 Nov 1997 15:37:15 -0500 (Eastern Standard Time)
- Priority: NORMAL
On Thu, 6 Nov 1997 22:40:14 -0800 (PST) [email protected] wrote:
> In a message dated 97-11-06 08:24:54 EST, ghunchu'wI' writes, answering
> peHruS:
>
> << If you try to use a question to translate this idea, it doesn't work.
> {Sop 'Iv 'e' vISovbe'} tries to say "I don't know that who ate it."
...
> The idea still wants a single noun as its object, not a complete statement.
> Using {'e'} is not appropriate; using {-bogh} is.
> >>
>
> I think I have found YOUR problem. You are tyring to say that {'e'}
> translates as "that" or "which" or "who", for example. This is not what TKD
> 6.2.5 says. The section explicitly states that Klingon uses two separate
> sentences. The first sentence may be a statement including Object, Verb and
> Subject, from the evidence presented in TKD's examples. The second sentence
> also has an Object, but that Object is {'e'}. This {'e'} refers back to the
> entire first sentence.
Meanwhile, it does so in a way that, when translated back into
English, translates into a single sentence. The argument we have
is over what that sentence should be. We are saying the sentence
makes no sense when the first sentence of SAO is a question. You
ignore this and say, "We followed the rules when me made this
construction so it must be valid."
> But, we should not try to say that the first sentence IS the Object of the
> second sentence, even though the section is entitles Sentences As Objects.
nuqjatlh? This is a rather strange statement. I doubt you should
put too much weight on it. Your argument might collapse if you
try to do so.
> By the special rules of Klingon grammar, {'e'} REFERS to the entire first
> sentence.
And your point is...?
> Thus, to Klingons, it does not matter what type of sentence the first
> sentence is; it does matter that it is a sentence.
Meaning. It must convey meaning.
> Okay, let's summarize. {qagh Sop 'Iv 'e' vISovbe'} does NOT mean "I do not
> know WHO eats the qagh."
On this, we totally agree.
> Rather, it means "Who eats the qagh? I do not know
> that."
Your ability to answer a question is not related to your ability
to know a question. Our point here is that you can't know a
question any more than you can ask a statement.
Ding!
That's worth repeating.
You cannot know a question any more than you can ask a
statement. The verb {Suv} is simply the wrong verb to use with a
question as its object.
> Similarly, {Duj legh loD 'e' Sovbe' yaS} does NOT mean "The officer
> knows THAT the man sees the ship." Rather, it means "The man sees the ship;
> I know that."
Well, these happen to mean the same thing. You are wrong when
you say that it doesn't mean "The officer knows that the man
sees the ship." That is precisely what it means and you know it.
You are trying to pretend that it is merely a convenient wording
for the two sentences you combine with a semicolon, just to try
to emphasize that in Klingon these are two separate sentences so
perhaps they should be translated as two sentences, even though
Okrand tells us quite plainly to translate them as one sentence
exactly like the one you now claim is not a good translation.
Hey, if it is really two sentences, why the semicolon?
> Let's look at the TKD example {qama'pu' DIHoH net Sov}, which
> might have been punctuated in King James' time as "One knows: we kill
> prisoners." Also, {yaS qIppu' [ghaH] 'e' vIlegh} renders as "I see: he hit
> the officer."
You are being quite inventive in your analysis here, but not
really leading anywhere constructive to your point.
> As a matter of fact, even {qalegh vIneH} is two separate sentences (viz TKD
> p67). Klingon just does not use {'e'} with {neH}.
So?
> Now, let's go a big step further: discourse. {qaja'pu' HIqaghQo'} means, of
> course, "I told you, 'Don't interrupt me!'" For those who have been follow
> MO's explanations that the sentence spoken (the discourse) is NOT the Object
> of the verb of speaking, in this case {ja'}, this should be a little easier.
You are stepping farther away from anything relating to the
grammar you propose.
> You have accepted the fact that we say {jIjatlh: jaghpu' HoH tlhInganpu'}
> rather than {jaghpu' HoH tlhInganpu' vIjatlh} as if {jaghpu' HoH tlhInganpu'}
> were the Object of {vIjatlh}.
True. What does this have to do with QAO?
> maSovchu'meH mangachchuqjaj
Fine, but I don't see this particular post clarifying anything.
> chaq tugh maHvaD QIj MO
Perhaps you should try holding your breath until he does?
> peHruS
charghwI'