tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Sun Nov 23 09:49:34 1997

Back to archive top level

To this year's listing



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

Re: plans



-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----

>Date: Mon, 3 Nov 1997 20:40:22 -0800 (PST)
>From: "William H. Martin" <[email protected]>
>
>On Sun, 2 Nov 1997 19:34:58 -0800 (PST) [email protected] wrote:
>
>> In a message dated 97-11-02 12:23:03 EST, ~mark replies to peHruS:
>> 
>> << Careful.  I maintain that Klingon question words are not relative clause
>>  markers (what do you think -bogh is for anyway?),  >>
>> 
>> peHruS jIH
>> 
>> jIHvaD bIjangchu'mo', qatlho', ~mark
>> 
>> As I have been pointing out recently, I am supporting the concept of using
>> {'e'} to link two separate sentences.  I will be very careful not to claim
>> that question words are relative clause markers.
>
>It doesn't matter what you CLAIM they are, you happen to be 
>USING them as relative clauses. It doesn't even matter if you 
>don't even recognize that you are using them as relative 
>clauses. You are.
>
>The questions in your Question As Object constructions have an 
>answer represented by the question word 'Iv, or nuq. That answer 
>is the real object of your second sentence in your Question As 
>Object construction. Note that this is exactly what a head noun 
>in a relative clause does.

This is probably the strongest aspect to your argument, in my mind.  As you
point out, in a "true" SAO construction, the 'e' refers to a clause as a
whole, whereas in the ones I've been talking about the 'e' is referring to
a noun.  It's not QUITE that simple, since "puq qIppu'bogh yaS'e' vISov"
sounds more like "I'm on familiar terms with the office who hit the child"
and not "I know his identity," but I suspect this may be a red herring due
to the many meanings of "know" in English (and probably Klingon too,
viz. "Qo'noSDaq vay' DaSov'a'?").

The application to question-words like "chay'" and "ghorgh" is not quite so
clear, but I can see your point, on the whole.  The "'e'" is referring to
the answser, which is not a whole clause (though it may be a dependent
clause, in the answers to "qatlh," etc).  It's this part that works, saying
that it's a stretch to go from 'e' referring to the previous clause to
referring to the ANSWER to previous clause sounds like nit-picking to
me... until you make the point, as above, that the answer is really a
noun.

There *is* a case of question-as-object which I think this can't answer,
and which I think really needs QAO construction, not just because I can't
think of another way (I probably can) but because I think it's right.  "I
don't know if the ship has left": "mejpu''a' Duj?  'e' vISovbe'."  THAT one
I think is right.  I don't think -chugh is the Right Thing here; that would
be "if the ship has left, I don't know [something]."  Weeelllll, I suppose
you could say "...then I don't know [it, i.e. that it has gone]."  Still, I
think "-'a'? 'e' vISov" works, and works better.  Yes, it stretches "'e'"
to be the *answer* to the question, but I don't think that's much of a
stretch, when you consider that the answer is a complete clause *also*:
it's either "mejpu' Duj" or "mejpu'be' Duj".  I guess that's why several
languages use the same word "whether" and marking yes/no questions (note: I
arrived at this conclusion this way 'round; I didn't start out thinking
"well, Esperanto uses "cxu" for yes/no questions and for "whether", let's
make that work in Klingon."  I worked out what made sense for Klingon, and
lo and behold it was what I'd seen in other languages without really being
sure why).

For no really good reason, I actually believe that Okrand likes QAO
constructions, at least for some cases, including even the ones that
charghwI' hates.  This is neither here nor there, since my feeling about
what Okrand likes is no proof and is irrelevant (and even if I'm right it's
irrelevant, since Okrand probably needs to think it through harder).
Although I still am not coming down against QAO like charghwI' and the
others, I can certainly say that I will be a lot less upset if they are
forbidden than you'll be if they're permitted (and incidentally, I think
that was always the case). :) Though I would like to see the ones with -'a'
remain.  Couldn't say how Krankor would take it.  Probably not all that
well, he's pretty convinced this stuff is all nitpicking.

>> chaq nuQoy MO 'ej maHvaD Hoch QIjchu' ghaH
>
>I feel certain that Okrand's hesitance to speak on this one is 
>that he does not want to shut off the potential that someone 
>might come up with a form of Question that would be appropriate 
>as an object of a Sentence As Object. Meanwhile, I'm certain 
>that he would see that all the ones presented so far are simply 
>veiled attempts to build relative clauses through other means 
>and he would not approve.

I think it may be the other way 'round.  That on first glance he figured it
was plainly right... then realized it could be a real mess, and is trying
to make sure it isn't.  Though I couldn't say why I think so.  Still, like
I said, I won't weep many tears if he comes down against them.

~mark


-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: 2.6.2
Comment: Processed by Mailcrypt 3.4, an Emacs/PGP interface

iQB1AwUBNHhsiMppGeTJXWZ9AQHx+QL/XU8kEqAvzeGs1+e7ItdphVmY1aSa6WbZ
CS89KKYfmnf15O+qWcDl978Xn9M6nyljxItroQYhNA1MVGQxL0+ZYnWBLa1vKip6
fh4r8hy7ktyVY1jIsWL0rfX/OOy+XQFb
=fIRY
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----


Back to archive top level