tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Mon Nov 17 22:19:42 1997
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
Re: Question as object
- From: [email protected]
- Subject: Re: Question as object
- Date: Tue, 18 Nov 1997 01:19:25 -0500 (EST)
In a message dated 97-11-09 00:31:40 EST, Qermaq writes:
<< There's no reason it would be interpreted any differently than a statement
sentence as object. charghwI', others, and I have already demonstrated that
this interpretation is at best, very, very strange - most probably,
nonsense.
<<<pe'>>>
Now, since this translates the concept SO WELL, my question for all of you
is this - Why find another way to do it? This way is unarguably correct,
while the QAO supposition is being argued against by the most experienced
Klingon speakers ever. Does this send a message to any of you? The relative
clause construction IS a superior tool for saying "I know who killed the
captain". Even if you were to allow for the QAO supposition to be
acceptable, the -bogh version is simply superior.
>> >>
peHruS here:
The construction is very, very weird to English-speaking minds. But it is
not nonsense to Klingon minds. There are two separate sections in TKD,
Relative Clauses and Sentences as Objects.
The message the second paragraph above sends to me is that even the most
experienced Terrans studying tlhIngan Hol have overlooked the true content of
TKD 6.2.5.
Qapla'