tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Fri Nov 14 20:11:53 1997
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
QAO Construction
- From: Qov <[email protected]>
- Subject: QAO Construction
- Date: Fri, 14 Nov 1997 20:11:41 -0800
It isn't in my official duty as BG, but there seems to be a tradition that
says I have to have an opinion on topics of debate here. My opinion is that
we don't know. I follow and agree with charghwI''s argument that logically
it is nonsense. I also know of constructions in other languages that are
both logically preposterous and grammatically correct.
I did recently meet someone online who has an opinion on everything, and
whose opinions are well respected arounnd here. Here is the transcript:
Qov is supposed to be .. and is .. halfheartedly answering KLBCs.
Krankor chuckles
Krankor says "'oy' DaSIQjaj :)"
You say "I'm about 200 messages behind, but I think 50 of those are 'get me
off this list' messages from one person, 25 are 'get yourself off, you
moron' replies, and another 50 are a flame war in tlhIngan Hol, with
interspersed, 'can't we all be nice'-es from the assembled."
Krankor laughs!!!! "What's the flame war over?"
You say "The 'QAO' construction: {qatlh SuD chal 'e' DaSov} for 'You know
why the sky is blue.'"
You say "Question as object."
Krankor nods
Krankor says "'ach qatlh SuD chal 'e' vISovbe' :)"
You say "So you come down on the pro side."
Krankor says "Actually, more than that. I 'invented' it."
You say "I don't accept the usage. charghwI' put it well. It's the answer
that you don't know, not the question."
Krankor says "That's hair-splitting."
Krankor says "It is OBVIOUS what you don't know."
Qov shrugs. "I haven't responded to the thread. I'll mention your viewpoint
when I do. Anything special you want said?"
Krankor says "I mean, I don't care, eschew the usage if you like. But I have
zero problem with it. I think it is very much in the spirit of things."
Krankor says "I don't know that I need to officially say more about it than
I already have."
Krankor says "A sentence can be an object. A question is a sentence. Ergo, a
question can be an object. The only question is what meaning the 'e' would
take. I think the obvious one is the only one that makes sense."
You say "I think it just doesn't make sense."
Krankor says "it's an incredibly useful construct and follows all the rules
pretty well. It's been around a LONG time and Okrand has never done anything
to contradict it. At this point, I think it's take it or leave it, and if
you wanna leave it, fine, but I don't think there's much left to *argue*
about it at this point."
You say "{loD HoH 'Iv 'e' vISov} is better expressed as {loD HoHbogh nuv
vISov}."
You say "The question words aren't relative pronouns."
Krankor says "Sheesh, I thought that YOU would clearly understand that in NO
WAY does the QAO construct treat the question words as relative pronouns.
Sheesh!"
Krankor says "Take it or leave it for what it is, but don't misinterpret it!
I'm using the question word as a question word. It is absulutely a question!"
You say "Oh, nice debate tactic. Either I agree with you forthwith or I
wither in your estimation. :)"
Krankor says "It is, technically, TWO sentences: a question, followed by a
statement. It retains its full question-ness."
Krankor says "What you are saying is so assinine I'm tempted to think that
someone else has gotten at your keyboard and is impersonating you. This
conversation is over."
Krankor disappears in a flash of wizardly brilliance!
Krankor has left.
---
jatlhta' Qanqor.
Qov [email protected]
Beginners' Grammarian