tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Sun Nov 09 19:26:46 1997
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
Re: plans
ja' Qermaq:
>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?"
Actually, it's not a hypothetical "what if" situation at all. People *are*
using the problematic *{yuch Soppu' 'Iv 'e' vISovbe'} style of writing, and
the Question As Object arguments are being given as justification. QAO has
been used for years, but I've never liked it. It wasn't until recently
that charghwI' gave a simple and clear explanation of why *he* is convinced
of its ungrammatical nature. That explanation convinced me that I've been
right to dislike QAO, and I decided it was my duty to make sure everybody
understood exactly what is wrong with it.
>o See the innumerable posts which demonstrate that objects must be nouns,
>statements are capable of being nouns, and questions are not.
Well, I'm not *completely* sure that a question can never be the object of
another sentence. But I haven't yet seen one that makes real grammatical
sense, with the possible exception of questions using the {-'a'} suffix.
Somehow, {yuch Soppu''a' puq 'e' vISovbe'} doesn't quite sound wrong, but
{yuch Soppu' puq 'e' vISovbe'} seems to carry the same idea.
-- ghunchu'wI'