tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Tue Oct 21 16:03:35 1997
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
Re: plans
According to [email protected]:
>
> muHwI' wrote:
>
>> chay' tlhIngan Duj chenlu' 'e' vIbej vIneH
>
> HoD Qanqor and I have used this construction, but some, including SuStel and
> ~mark, have claimed it is not correct. They have stated that {chay'} and
> other Klingon question words are not relative clause markers.
This doesn't have anything to do with relative clauses.
Meanwhile, I'm among those who don't really like this
construction. I know of no canon useage of a Question As Object
construction and it just feels weird to me. "I want to watch
how is a Klingon ship formed?" Do you really watch a question?
My concern is that a question is a whole different kind of
sentence. I do not personally understand how the nature of the
question affects the meaning of the whole Sentence As Object
construction. The aspect of the first verb affects the whole
construction. What about the question?
I'd prefer to say:
tlhIngan Duj chenmoHlu'meH mIw vIyaj vIneH.
To me, that is a LOT easier to comprehend, and I've never seen
a Question As Objectqoq that could not be easily recast into
soemthing that is a lot easier to understand. My primary drive
in Klingon is to write things easy to understand. The primary
force I fight against is the trend to write things easy to
construct, but obtuse to decode.
> I still think
> that we only need to look at the above as two separate sentences, the first
> being a question.
But we don't have a "Question As Object" construction. We have
a "Sentence As Object" construction. While questions are
sentences, I really think this construction fits statements
better than questions, and all the questions as objects are
unnecessary. So, why bother?
> peHruS
>
charghwI'