tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Mon Nov 17 22:49:54 1997
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
Re: Sentence as Object
- From: [email protected]
- Subject: Re: Sentence as Object
- Date: Tue, 18 Nov 1997 01:49:43 -0500 (EST)
In a message dated 97-11-09 18:29:31 EST, charghwI' writes:
<< TKD
> 6.2.5 says. The section explicitly states that Klingon uses two separate
> sentences. The first sentence may be a statement including Object, Verb
and
> Subject, from the evidence presented in TKD's examples. The second
sentence
> also has an Object, but that Object is {'e'}. This {'e'} refers back to
the
> entire first sentence.
Meanwhile, it does so in a way that, when translated back into
English, translates into a single sentence. The argument we have
is over what that sentence should be. We are saying the sentence
makes no sense when the first sentence of SAO is a question. You
ignore this and say, "We followed the rules when me made this
construction so it must be valid." >>
-----------------
charghwI', this is the faulty part of your argument. You want the two
sentences to always translate back into English as a fluid single sentence.
The beauty of Klingon grammar is that it is nothing like English. QAO do
not translate back into English as single sentences. They remain two
sentences. Actually, SAO remain two sentences in Klingon. You just think
they are one sentence becaue you are thinking in English instead of tlhIngan
Hol.
Okay. SAO make sense to you and QAO do not. Both make perfect sense to me
only when I am using tlhIngan Hol, not when I try translating English.
peHruS