tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Sun Nov 09 20:25:37 1997
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
Re: Question as object
- From: "William H. Martin" <[email protected]>
- Subject: Re: Question as object
- Date: Sun, 9 Nov 1997 23:26:48 -0500 (Eastern Standard Time)
- Priority: NORMAL
On Sun, 9 Nov 1997 00:02:59 -0800 (PST) [email protected] wrote:
> In a message dated 97-11-07 21:37:55 EST, charghwI' writes:
>
> <<
> 'Iv HoH HoD 'e' vISov.
>
> "I know who did the captain kill?"
>
> This doesn't make much sense...
> ============================================================
> peHruS here:
>
> charghwI', you tend to overlook other elements while you are debating. Even
> though you have some very good ideas regarding tlhIngan Hol, you are really
> overlooking important evidence on both sides. That is not good in a debate
> such as this.
I'm all ears.
> First, you need to use better English!!
>
> "I know "whom" the captain killed." is correct.
True. Insignificant to this arguement, but true.
> Now, before analyzing why that still fits as a QAO, we need to look at TKD
> p69. "For {'Iv} and {nuq} the question word fits into the sentence int he
> position that would be occupied by the answer."
No problem so far.
> "Both {'Iv} and {nuq} are trerated as nouns as far as the pronomial prefixws
> are concerned."
I'm still with you. I don't see what I've missed yet.
> Okay, let's analyze. The question words are not nouns. But, they are
> treated as nouns grammatically. They can be the object or subject of a
> sentence!!
Okay. I doubt I've ever doubted this.
> Next, the meaty debate: The captain killed; I know whom. Using this
> English, we can see this is two sentences, obviously. This meets every
> criterion set by TKD 6.2.5.
No, it doesn't. One sentence is not the object of the other, so
this has nothing to do with SAO, and "whom" is a pronoun, not a
question word, since neither of these sentences is a question.
So, what exactly are you proving here except that:
1. You can't buy a clue.
2. You will leap to any strange technical contortion to try to
confuse people enough to accept that surely you understand
something we don't understand because we clearly can't
understand what you are saying.
This example has nothing to do with questions or SAO. You have
two sentences separated by a semicolon (at least as
ungrammatical as my use of "who" instead of "whom") unless you
combine them as a RELATIVE CLAUSE:
"I know whom the captain killed."
> Next, a concession: because TKD does not say that {qatlh}, {ghorgh},
> {chay'}, {'ar}, and {nuqDaq} are treated grammatically as nouns, nor is it
> clearly stated that they fill the position of the noun in the answer, answers
> as objects attempting to parallel the questions really does not have a TKD
> basis.
I don't remember anyone ever accepting that an answer to a
question could serve to "parallel" the question and act as
object to another sentence. In fact, this is exactly what we
DON'T accept. There is nothing anywhere in TKD that remotely
suggests that this is valid. The answer will NOT serve to be
represented by {'e'}. The question itself must be represented by
{'e'}, but all resulting constructions are gibberish because YOU
CAN'T KNOW A QUESTION ANY MORE THAN YOU CAN ASK A STATEMENT.
I doubt that Okrand even used the word "parallel" in TKD except
in the definition for {Don} and {HeDon}. This is your invention,
and it doesn't work.
> If anything, TKD does state that {nuqDaq} acts as a locative.
Well, it's location in a sentence mirrors that of a locative,
except that it converts a statement into a question,
fundamentally changing the function of the sentence.
> The
> parallel answer for {nuqDaq jaghpu' HoH yaS 'e' DaSov'a'} (if such a
> construction were allowed at all) would be {may' yoSDaq jaghpu' HoH yaS 'e'
> vISov}. Without emphasis on the place, this answer tells what the subject
> did and where.
Again, you've latched on to the term "parallel", which is not
mentioned in TKD grammar at all and make the incredible claim
that you can use QAO because the ANSWER to the question will
somehow "parallel" the meaning of the question and therefore
represent the ANSWER to the question by {'e'} in a SAO.
Your argument has crossed the threshold into that which can
legitimately be described as demented. Note that I am not saying
anything derrogatory about YOU. You are a fine person, capable
of insight and intelligence that is enjoyable and remarkable,
but this argument is demented. You have blown a fuse and your
synapses are short circuiting when you try to hold up your end
of this dying argument.
Some people kick dead horses. You are trying to convince
yourself that you are RIDING this one, and trust me. It's dead,
Jim.
charghwI'