tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Fri Nov 21 04:26:11 1997

Back to archive top level

To this year's listing



[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]

Re: QAO Construction



On Fri, 14 Nov 1997 20:20:53 -0800 (PST) Qov <[email protected]> 
wrote:

> It isn't in my official duty as BG, but there seems to be a tradition that
> says I have to have an opinion on topics of debate here.  My opinion is that
> we don't know.  I follow and agree with charghwI''s argument that logically
> it is nonsense.  I also know of constructions in other languages that are
> both logically preposterous and grammatically correct.
> 
> I did recently meet someone online who has an opinion on everything, and
> whose opinions are well respected arounnd here.  Here is the transcript:

Thanks for sharing with us Krankor's take on this. I wish he 
were here for the debate interactively with all of us, but that 
is not his choice at this time.

I knew that he invented QAO. He is invested in it enough that 
I'm not surprised by his defensive escape when you spoke out 
against it. 

I have enormous respect for Krankor. He started my interest in 
this langauge. He was the first person who could write 
substantial quantities of text in Klingon which I could 
consistently and easily understand. He got me through several 
grammatical points I had extreme difficulty with in the early 
years. I stood beside him in many arguments with Nick and 
Proechel. Nothing else gave my Klingon skills so much of a 
sudden boost as the month he had me act as translator while he 
refused to write anything in English. He was correcting people's 
grammar while speaking only Klingon.

This is one of the few episodes in which we disagree on things. 
Of course, the other issues we disagreed on were the use of 
{-ghach} and I think he was also in favor of using {nuq} as an 
adjective as the question word for "which" (though I may be wrong
about that).

I sincerely think Krankor is wrong about this, though I don't 
expect a calm debate on the issue. He's been using this 
construction for years (though rarely) and he is not likely to 
stop now and think it through more thoroughly. He dodges the 
obvious point that {'e'} is being used to represent the entity 
represented by the question word in the question. In other 
words, the {'e'} and question word combine to behave like a 
pronoun acting as head noun of a relative clause.

In other words, it is a relative pronoun. Klingon doesn't have 
relative pronouns. In English, question words sound like 
relative pronouns. In Klingon, {'e'} represents the whole 
sentence which is object of the second verb. You can't bend that 
around to say that it represents the most obvious "thing" that a 
common person understands when they hear the question. That 
"thing" is the question word acting as relative pronoun while 
the question acts as a relative clause. If Krankor had a decent 
way to save face while recognizing that, he would certainly do 
so. He has the skill with the language to do so, but he also has 
a lot of pride and cannot deal with having something this much 
his own long-standing invention so openly shown to be 
short-sighted.

charghwI'
[more comments follow] 
...
> You say "The 'QAO' construction: {qatlh SuD chal 'e' DaSov} for 'You know
> why the sky is blue.'"
> You say "Question as object."
> Krankor nods
> Krankor says "'ach qatlh SuD chal 'e' vISovbe' :)"
> You say "So you come down on the pro side."
> Krankor says "Actually, more than that. I 'invented' it."
> You say "I don't accept the usage. charghwI' put it well. It's the answer
> that you don't know, not the question."
> Krankor says "That's hair-splitting."
> Krankor says "It is OBVIOUS what you don't know."
> Qov shrugs. "I haven't responded to the thread. I'll mention your viewpoint
> when I do. Anything special you want said?"
> Krankor says "I mean, I don't care, eschew the usage if you like. But I have
> zero problem with it. I think it is very much in the spirit of things."
> Krankor says "I don't know that I need to officially say more about it than
> I already have."
> Krankor says "A sentence can be an object. A question is a sentence. Ergo, a
> question can be an object. The only question is what meaning the 'e' would
> take. I think the obvious one is the only one that makes sense."
> You say "I think it just doesn't make sense."
> Krankor says "it's an incredibly useful construct and follows all the rules
> pretty well. It's been around a LONG time and Okrand has never done anything
> to contradict it. At this point, I think it's take it or leave it, and if
> you wanna leave it, fine, but I don't think there's much left to *argue*
> about it at this point."
> You say "{loD HoH 'Iv 'e' vISov} is better expressed as {loD HoHbogh nuv
> vISov}."
> You say "The question words aren't relative pronouns."
> Krankor says "Sheesh, I thought that YOU would clearly understand that in NO
> WAY does the QAO construct treat the question words as relative pronouns.
> Sheesh!"
> Krankor says "Take it or leave it for what it is, but don't misinterpret it!
> I'm using the question word as a question word. It is absulutely a question!"
> You say "Oh, nice debate tactic. Either I agree with you forthwith or I
> wither in your estimation. :)"
> Krankor says "It is, technically, TWO sentences: a question, followed by a
> statement. It retains its full question-ness."

So, how does one then translate this full question such that 
{'e'} represents the question and not the answer to the question?

> Krankor says "What you are saying is so assinine I'm tempted to think that
> someone else has gotten at your keyboard and is impersonating you. This
> conversation is over."

When losing an argument, speak quickly and leave before anyone 
can rebut...

> Krankor disappears in a flash of wizardly brilliance!
> Krankor has left.
> ---
> 
> jatlhta' Qanqor.
> 
> 
> Qov     [email protected]
> Beginners' Grammarian                 
> 

charghwI'




Back to archive top level