tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Mon Feb 21 12:32:55 2000
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
(KLBC) introducing relatives
- From: Nicolau Rodrigues <[email protected]>
- Subject: (KLBC) introducing relatives
- Date: Mon, 21 Feb 2000 15:32:27 -0500
Recently I asked about the function that {'e'} would take as a subject, and it started a discussion very interesting to me. One of the people who took part was {charghwI'} replying to {DloraH}:
>On Tue, 8 Feb 2000 23:04:29 -0500 TPO <[email protected]>
>wrote:
>> > HoD Qanqor sees nothing wrong with using a question as the object
>> > of a sentence. ... Many others do
>> > not share his assessment, and prefer to avoid such constructions.
>>
>> MO did say that we can not have QAO.
>> Whether the question words can act the same way english question
>> words do, is unkown (I don't remember what the terminology is for
>> this).
>
>He did not rule out all potential for QAO. He merely stated
>that all the examples presented to him didn't fly and
>basically, until he thought of a specific reason to need
>QAO, it didn't work. In particular, the common examples we
>wondered about definitely were not acceptable.
>
>He definitely said that you can't use question words as if
>they were relative pronouns. In English, relative clauses
>are handled by the use of relative pronouns, which just
>happen to be identical to our question words.
>
>Question words:
>
>Who are you?
>What is wrong?
>When are you leaving?
>Where is your permit?
>Why are you leaving?
>How will you fix this?
>
>Relative pronouns:
>
>I don't know who he was.
>I don't know what he did.
>He didn't say when he would be leaving.
>I know where he is hiding.
>I know why he is hiding.
>I know how to find him.
>
>The words are the same, but the grammar is unrelated.
>Unfortunately, thinking in English, you can ignore this and
>fail to recognize that Klingon handles relative clauses
>with a completely different grammar. It is not that Klingon
>optionally handles it with a different grammar such that
>you can do it the Klingon way (with {-bogh} on the verb) or
>the English way {by using {'e'} with Sentence as Object
>where the sentence is actually a question because you are
>misusing a question word as if Klingon also used it as a
>relative pronoun like English does.
>
>Klingon never uses a question word as if it were a relative
>pronoun. Never. Just because you can place words next to
>each other such that if you translate into English you will
>get an English styled relative clause that doesn't mean
>that you are actually saying anything that would be
>understood by any Klingon.
I'm speechless now! Is it right to use question words introducing relative clauses or not? Some say "yes", some say "no",... I've picked two exemples from Nick Nicholas' translation of "Much Ado About Nothing" (5th revision) {paghmo' tIn mIS}:
2.1, {joH pe'tlho} says:
{HItlhej 'ej nuq vIHech Saja'.}
"Accompany me and I'll told you what I will try"
2.2, {joH jon} says:
{chay' Dabot nom 'e' HIQIj.}
"Explain me quickly how will you prevent it"
And I take from the same source a use of {'e'} I didn't expect:
3.1, {Hero} says:
{maja'chuq 'e' 'IjmeH qettaHvIS.}
"While she's running to listen what are we talking about"
I know N. Nicholas' version is not the final one of the text, but, as long as it is available to everyone under KLI's permission and due to it comes from a reputed connoisseur of Klingon, I believe in this
translation.
ghaHbe'wI'
_________________________________________________________
http://www.latinmail.com. Gratuito, latino y en espaņol.