tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Tue Jul 14 20:43:09 1998
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
Re: QoghIj qaD
- From: "David Trimboli" <[email protected]>
- Subject: Re: QoghIj qaD
- Date: Tue, 14 Jul 1998 14:34:21 -0400
From: Alan Anderson <[email protected]>
>It will take some more explanation than the near-hearsay of Okrand's
>statement that a "question" (not my quotes, but I'm not sure if they
>are Okrand's either) cannot be used as an object before I will state
>that {nuqDaq maba' DaneH?} is ungrammatical.
In fact, I might be tempted to accept {nuqDaq maba' DaneH} where I might not
accept {nuq Daje' DaneH}.
nuq Daje' DaneH
What do you eat? you want [that].
In {neH} sentences, as in all other Sentence As Object sentences, the first
sentence is the object of the second sentence. {DaneH} is the second
sentence. {nuq Daje'} is the first sentence. {neH} is special because it
doesn't use {'e'}.
Although charghwI' is convinced that {neH} is some sort of half-mutated verb
suffix-to-be, I also see the possibility of another interpretation, which I
have presentented before. Instead of using a pronoun to stand in for the
first sentence, {neH} may actually use the first sentence itself in the
object position.
This means that {nuq Daje' DaneH} is just any "question as object," whatever
legality that may hold.
However, {nuqDaq maba' DaneH} *could* be interpreted in this manner (not
that it must be, but it might be):
The "first" sentence is {maba'} "we sit." The "second" sentence is {nuqDaq
DaneH} "Where do you want it?" The "first" sentence is then used as the
object of {neH}, to get {nuqDaq maba' DaneH} "Where do you want that we
sit?"
Granted, this is asking where the *wanting* is to be performed, not where
the sitting is to be performed. But as charghwI' has often done in the
past, applying an adverbial concept like {nuqDaq} to the "wanting" might be
seen as modifying the object sentence (I recall a conversation about {reH
DIvI' Duj vISuv vIneH}).
No, I'm not saying anyone should accept this analysis without further proof.
I'm not even saying that *I* accept this analysis. I'm just speculating,
and providing the usual disclaimers to prevent people from accusing me of
having said this or that further down the line.
For the record, I see {nuq Daje' DaneH} as a likely possibility, but it does
not conform with the grammar as I have come to understand it, nor is there
any evidence to show that this sort of thing is allowed. I shall recast to
something that is known to be correct until something better comes along, or
until my suspicions are confirmed (and then I'll keep recasting).
SuStel
Stardate 98534.6