tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Thu Nov 26 11:01:49 1998
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
Re: RE:
- From: "David Trimboli" <[email protected]>
- Subject: Re: RE:
- Date: Thu, 26 Nov 1998 12:36:15 -0500
From: Alan Anderson <[email protected]>
>What we had here in the original attempt was a "sentence as object"
>with a question as the object. We know that doesn't work, but with
>one simple substitution it can be used as a pattern for something I
>think does work well. Instead of the entire sentence as object, for
>this idea we want a *reason* as object.
>
>qatlh nuch HoH yaS? meq vISov
>nuqDaq yuch Dapol? Daq vIqaw.
>chay' HanDogh tI' chamwI'? mIw vIghojta'.
>ghorgh mamej? rep vIlIj.
While this certainly works, I've found (and this is entirly my own opinion)
that such rhetorical questions become very tiresome to read. To me, it
simply seems the ultimate in un-Klingon things to do, asking a question when
you know perfectly well what the answer is, just so you can find a
grammatical way to state it.
Such questions ("I know why the officer killed the coward") are really
stating two things: "The officer killed the coward," and "I know the
reason." In the simplest, non-context sentence, you can simply state these.
{nuch HoH yaS. meq vISov.}
When you're using such a statement in context, these two sentences may not
even be close to each other, or may be built into others.
taghDI' may', Haw'choH nuch. legh yaS 'ej bach. nuch HoH. meq vISov 'ej
bIyajbe' je.
I recommend not relying on such formulae.
SuStel
Stardate 98904.1