tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Sun Sep 03 23:21:52 2000
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
Re: nuq as object
ja' taD:
> As I understand it, some people feel that if the first sentence is a
> question, then when the second sentence refers back to it, it refers to the
> answer. So if someone was looking at it with this perspective, then they
> might interpret {nuq DaSop DaneH?} as "What do you eat? You want that"; or
> "You want whatever you eat" where "whatever you eat" is the answer to {nuq
> DaSop}. Since I'm not a proponent of this idea, my explanation here might
> not be the best one. Suffice to say, if you say {nuq DaSop DaneH}, a Klingon
> speaker would understand you.
I think this explanation slightly confuses the arguments.
Some people feel that question words can be used in the first sentence of a
"Sentence As Object" construction even if the intent is not to ask a
question.
>From this viewpoint, {yuch Soppu' 'Iv 'e' vISov} can be interpreted as
meaning "I know who ate the chocolate." Nobody proposing this has ever, to
my knowledge, objected to using question words if the entire utterance
*does* ask a question.
The other point of view is that interrogative {chuvmey} should only be used
for asking questions. {qatlh bIghun 'e' vISov} is semantic nonsense when
seen from this position, and cannot reasonably mean "I know why you
program" even if it's restated as "Why do you program? I know that."
Neither group has a problem with {nuq DaSop DaneH} "What do you want to
eat?" There was a minor bout a few years ago when we came close to seeing
an objection, but it was quickly resolved by the fact that it actually is a
question.
-- ghunchu'wI' 'utlh