tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Fri Nov 21 04:21:01 1997
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
Re: Question as object
- From: "William H. Martin" <[email protected]>
- Subject: Re: Question as object
- Date: Fri, 21 Nov 1997 07:23:03 -0500 (Eastern Standard Time)
- Priority: NORMAL
On Mon, 17 Nov 1997 22:34:06 -0800 (PST) [email protected]
wrote:
> 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'
So, you genuinely believe that you alone understand the Klingon
langauge better than everyone else here. qoH Da 'Iv?
charghwI'