tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Wed Feb 23 14:43:13 2000
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
Re: Question words
On Wed, 23 Feb 2000 07:48:00 -0500 "Dr. Lawrence M. Schoen"
<[email protected]> wrote:
> It's always fun to watch two respected grammarians arguing. However, the
> large paragraphs of text would be better served if both Mark and Will were
> to provide clear cut examples of what they're talking about.
>
> In Mark's case, I'd like to see some example sentences in both Klingon and
> English, illustrating what he's calling "indirect questions" (i.e., the
> "not not allowed" usage).
>
> In Will's case, I'd like to see some examples sentences in both English and
> (by his view) ungrammatical Klingon of the misuse of question words as
> "relative pronouns."
In part, this form of argument isn't going to get very far
because Mark and I are going to take the same examples and
explain them differently. I will say that it is an example
of an attempt to use a question word as if it were a
relative pronoun because that's how it sounds in English.
Mark will take the same example and say that the question
word is being used as a question word and a second sentence
will refer back to it indirectly, hence, an "indirect
question".
My whole point is:
1. There is no evidence that "indirect questions" are valid
in Klingon. Maybe they will be someday, but as yet, we have
no evidence of it.
2. There is no explanation of what, in Klingon, an indirect
question is or what form it would take.
3. Lacking a definition or example of any indirect question
in canon, we have no basis for differentiating between a
valid use of this as-yet-unseen indirect question syntax
and genuinely invalid misuse of question words as if they
were relative pronouns.
4. English speakers with familiarity with relative pronouns
are naturally drawn to misusing question words, which sound
just like relative pronouns in English, as if they really
were relative pronouns in Klingon. Beginning Klingonists
are particularly vulnerable to this influence.
5. Our priority to avoid possibly disallowing an unseen
potential grammatical construction is missplaced if it
implies encouraging beginners to be misled about proper
syntax for relative clauses in Klingon. Encourage them to
create all the "indirect questions" they want and we no
longer need relative clauses in Klingon. We'll just cast
them all as indirect questions and they will be more
familiar to us because they translate more directly back
into English and we don't have to deal with one of the more
alien grammatical constructions of the language.
That said, I'll do my best to satisfy your request.
In English, the following are both question words and
relative pronouns:
who
what
when
where
why
how
Examples of each:
"I saw who ate the pie."
Wrong: chab Sop 'Iv 'e' vIlegh.
Wrong: chab Sopbogh 'Iv vIlegh.
In English, "who" is both a relative pronoun and a question
word. In Klingon, it is only a question word. There are no
Klingon relative pronouns. We instead must use {-bogh} on
the verb and offer an explicit noun as the head noun of
that clause.
Right: chab Sopbogh nuv'e' vIlegh.
"I know what you are thinking."
Wrong: nuq DaQub 'e' vISov.
Wrong: nuq DaQubbogh vISov.
Right: qechlIj vISov.
Right: qechmey DaQubbogh vISov.
"I know when we can eat."
Wrong: ghorgh maSoplaH 'e' vISov.
Right: maSoplaHmeH poH lugh vISov.
"I know where he hid the pie."
Wrong: nuqDaq chab So' 'e' vISov.
Right: chab So'meH Daq vISov.
Right: chab So'lu'bogh Daq vISov.
I know why he hid the pie.
Wrong: qatlh chab So' 'e' vISov.
Right: chab So'meH meq vISov.
"I saw how he made the pie."
Wrong: chay' chab vut 'e' vIlegh.
Right: chab vutmeH mIw vIlegh.
Right: chab vuttaHvIS vIbej.
> Discussions of theory are all well and good, but since both camps are
> concerned about the wrong message going out, particularly to beginner and
> intermediate speakers, some clear cut illustrations of the issues would be
> of more help.
The problem is that he and I will explain the same example
from two different grammatical perspectives.
chab Sop 'Iv 'e' vIlegh.
I see a relative pronoun translated as a question word with
SAO syntax used to glue together the pseudo-relative clause
to the main clause. The pseudo-translation is, "I saw who
ate the pie."
Mark will look at the same example and see an Indirect
Question As Object construction, translatable as:
Who ate the pie? I saw that.
When I try to look at it his way, I see a confusing misuse
of the pronoun {'e'}. The only way it makes sense to me is
if I begin with the idea of a relative clause as I know it
in English and I build a collection of Klingon words such
that when they are translated, they strongly resemble the
English relative clause that I had in mind.
How can one see a question? You don't see the question. You
see the ANSWER to the question. And what is that answer?
Well, the answer just happens to be the head noun of the
question reconstructed as a relative clause.
There are no examples of "indirect questions" that do not
follow this consistency, that the answer to the question
is a noun, which is being represented by {'e'}. These
examples may most often be reconstructed as relative
clauses for {'Iv} {nuq} and {nuqDaq} or as purpose clauses
for {chay'} or {qatlh}. {ghorgh} is a bit uglier and tends
to need a variety of recasting.
Still, the point is that {'e'} represents the sentence
preceeding it, not the answer to the question/sentence and
the only reason we are tempted to believe that this is
acceptable is that we are so profoundly familiar with
relative pronouns in English that sound like question
words. We really WANT this to work. It just seems so
natural.
The pronoun {'e'} always represents the entire sentence
preceeding it in its entirety, in its present form. We
can't twist it around and make it do something it was not
meant to do in Klingon syntax. Okrand may someday expand
the role of {'e'}, hence his slipperiness on the issue
while dealing with Mark, but until he does so, the rest of
us have no authority to prescribe that syntax.
And if Mark uses private communications with Okrand to
press on this mission of his without including someone with
a different perspective, I will resent it. During my own
rare opportunities for that kind of communication (like the
interview in HolQeD), I made a big point of presenting
views other than my own without revealing which perspective
was mine and accepting Okrand's responses without pressing
him toward what I wanted him to do. [I definitely was not
wanting {jaH} to be used as Okrand chooses to use it.] Any
access to Okrand is a priviledge. Anyone granted that
priviledge owes it to the rest of the group to, as much as
possible, represent more than our personal interests of the
moment. We seek to reveal the language, not shape it.
> And too, I'll be better able to lift this thread for inclusion in a
> RoundTable somewhere down the line. :)
Good luck. Condensing this kind of rambling stubbornness is
not going to be easy.
> Lawrence
charghwI'