tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Tue Feb 23 21:26:08 1999
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
Re: qama'
- From: "William H. Martin" <[email protected]>
- Subject: Re: qama'
- Date: Wed, 24 Feb 1999 00:30:37 -0500 (Eastern Standard Time)
- Priority: NORMAL
While you can declare this with great confidence, you don't
instill confidence in me. I still think this is something that
is yet a bit shakey.
On Tue, 23 Feb 1999 17:03:52 -0800 (PST) [email protected]
wrote:
> In a message dated 2/22/1999 12:29:37 PM US Mountain Standard Time,
> [email protected] writes:
>
> << But that same "clear" statement would likely lead me to ask the
> question as {nuq DaDab} and not {nuqDaq DaDab}. It is not really
> all that clear. I'm okay with it being a little vague. If Okrand
> cares to clear this up more, I'll be delighted. Meanwhile, I
> don't have the ego to take this on as a personal mission to set
> Okrand straight on how his language is supposed to work.
> >>
>
>
> In a prior message from you, you have acknowledged that the word {nuqDaq} is
> the word for "where?" It is NOT simply {nuq} plus a locative.
Totally agreed. I would not argue otherwise.
> So, the correct question is {nuqDaq DaDab}...
In English, the correct question is "Where do you dwell?" It is
not "Where do you dwell in?" It is "Where do you reside?" not
"Where do you reside at?"
This question does not fit so neatly into Klingon as you would
like to suggest. The relationship between {Dab} and its direct
object is a bit more complex. The direct object is a noun which
is signficant primarily as a locative concept. The {-Daq} suffix
is optional.
You can assume (with no basis) that the meaning of the {-Daq} is
there, even if it is absent, or you can assume (with no basis)
that the presence of {-Daq} is insignificant, even if it is
there.
The main point is, we don't know. We can look at the usage and
Okrand's explanation so far and as one who spent some time
talking with Okrand about this, I know that I can't confidently
say that {nuqDaq DaDab} is even all that well formed a question.
The direct object of {Dab}, like the direct object of {ghoS} is
quite properly a plain noun. While its location may be
signficant, it is not the location which is the direct object.
It is the noun itself. That's why {nuq DaDab} looks like it
would have a higher likelihood of being a well formed question.
In the interview, as in TKD, Okrand said that including the
{-Daq} on the direct object of these particular verbs
(initially, we only knew about {ghoS} might be considered
somewhat redundant, though not out-and-out wrong.
That leads me to think that while both forms (with and without
{-Daq} are technically correct, not having the {-Daq} is a bit
more commonly accepted. And if the direct object favored is the
lone noun, and not its location, it seems like the better
question word to stand in for that noun would be {nuq} and not
{nuqDaq}. None of this implies that {nuqDaq} is a suffixed
{nuq}. It is its own word.
In fact, if it is indeed its own question word and not a
suffixed {nuq} as you and I agree, then its location always at
the beginning of every sentence it resides in suggests that it
is not a question word standing in for a subject or object.
Meanwhile, in this case, we are asking for the direct object of
{Dab}.
Meanwhile, I can't be sure of this because while Okrand revealed
a lot about STATEMENTS using verbs like {Dab} and {ghoS}, he
didn't address QUESTIONS using these verbs. Likely, it is an
arbitrary point. It could go either way, though I'm sure
Klingons have a preference.
Then again, it may fit the same pattern that the statements
make. That neither form is exclusively correct, though {nuqDaq}
may seem somewhat redundant (and therefore not especially
preferable).
> and the correct answer is {Shannon
> vIDab}, without {-Daq}. No further reasoning is required to settle this one.
When was the last time you declared something like this and
people agreed?
> peHruS
charghwI' 'utlh