tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Mon Nov 17 13:13:49 1997
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
Re: plans
- From: Marc Ruehlaender <[email protected]>
- Subject: Re: plans
- Date: Mon, 17 Nov 1997 15:13:40 CST
> "whether": conj. (1) a word introducing, in dependent clauses or the like,
> [snip]
> "if": conj. (1) in case that; granting or supposing that; on condition that.
> [snip]
'twould've been interesting to see what you find for "that"
in this context...
> I'm stating that I don't know the first of two
> alternatives. If I don't konw the first one, I obviously don't know the
> second one.
>
?? I really don't follow this reasoning, but probably it's the same
problem, I cannot see how to "not know one alternative"
> In this case, I disagree. {SIv} means {Sovbe' 'ej qeltaH} not knowing and
> thinking about whatever the object {'e'} is. And since Okrand discussed
> both of these verbs together, addressing exactly this function of {SIv}, it
> makes sense to me.
>
well.. still {SIv} and {Sov} are different verbs and how can you know
whether (that?) they behave similarly. I agree that Okrands examples
show that(!) the object of {SIv} is one of the alternatives that you
wonder about - in this case {'e'} can be translated as "whether"
(can you say "I wonder that the child ate the chocolate"?)
> Hmmm . . . how ELSE might you say "I don't know whether the child ate the
> chocolate"? Without trying to use a question as object that is. And
> preferrably without using rhetorical questions, too.
>
I've been thinking about that... you might say something - admittedly
longwinded and maybe still using a rhetorical question - like
"If you ask me whether the child ate the chocolate, I cannot answer you."
(oh no - without my TKD, I'll probably mess this one up...)
{<<Huch Sop'a' puq?>> chotlhobchugh, qajanglaHbe'.}
it is not very Klingon but I think it is grammatical and
unambiguous (assuming that {tlhob} and {jang} can be used
with the adressee as object)
HomDoq