tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Fri Nov 21 04:20:44 1997
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
Re: Sentence as Object
- From: "William H. Martin" <[email protected]>
- Subject: Re: Sentence as Object
- Date: Fri, 21 Nov 1997 07:22:43 -0500 (Eastern Standard Time)
- Priority: NORMAL
On Mon, 17 Nov 1997 23:04:44 -0800 (PST) [email protected]
wrote:
> 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
I suspect that the ONLY reason it makes sense to you is that you
ARE translating it into English, and doing so badly. After you
translate QAO into English and misinterpret the question words
as relative pronouns and reorder the wording a little, it makes
perfect sense. Until you do that, it is gibberish.
I suggest also suggest that if you consider your comprehension
skills in Klingon to be substantially better than mine, you
might be mistaken. I say this less as an ego statement than as a
simple matter of record.
There are people here who can write about complex ideas and tell
delightful stories of substantial length while being well
understood by those who have skills with the langauge. You have
substantial skill with the langauge and I do not wish to
disrespect the skill you have and the work you've done, but you
have not earned the credentials of one who can tell me how much
better you understand the language than I do. Not in this
grammatical construction or anywhere else.
charghwI'