tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Mon Sep 04 13:23:42 2000
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
RE: nuq as object
- From: "Stauffer, Tad E (staufte7)" <[email protected]>
- Subject: RE: nuq as object
- Date: Mon, 4 Sep 2000 16:14:00 -0400
muchuH ghunchu'wI':
> 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.
>
>
Since I tend to agree with the latter "question words are only for asking
questions" point of view, my understanding and explanation of the other
perspective obviously was incomplete/incorrect. DopDaq qul yIchenmoH QobDI'
ghu'.
bIQIjchu'mo' ghunchu'wI', qatlho'neS.
- taD