tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Mon Dec 31 12:27:08 2001
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
Re: QAO (was: I had an idea, I don't know how...)
- From: "David Trimboli" <[email protected]>
- Subject: Re: QAO (was: I had an idea, I don't know how...)
- Date: Mon, 31 Dec 2001 12:27:05 -0500
- References: <[email protected]>
From: "Sean Healy" <[email protected]>
> Yes, and that was one of my points - you can either assume that things he
> hasn't explicitly okayed are bad, or assume that things he hasn't
explicitly
> banned are good.
Or, you can do the best thing: consider each point of contention
individually, and try to come up with the best strategy for dealing with it.
In my opinion, QAO is best dealt with by not using it. Some disagree, which
is what makes it a continuing point of contention.
Some people believe that Okrand's use of /-pu'/ in his example sentence of
asking someone his age (I forget the precise example, but strictly using
that example, I'd say /cha'maH chorgh ben jIboghpu'/) was carefully chosen,
to indicate precision. The argument goes that unless it's my birthday, I
wasn't born EXACTLY 28 years ago, and so as of exactly 28 years ago, I had
already been born. Personally, I think this is poppycock: Okrand just
slipped back into using perfective for tense, something he does a lot in THE
KLINGON DICTIONARY. DaHjaj 'oHbe' qoSwIj'e', 'a cha'maH chorgh ben jIbogh.
Another reason I think it's silly to think the /-pu'/ is an important part
of that example is that the following sentence is also always true: wa'Hu'
jIboghpu'. In the case of this point of contention, it doesn't alter a
fundamental point of the grammar if it gets used: it's only for the case of
talking about one's age, and can be explained away as a traditional usage.
This is in contrast to accepting QAO, which changes a heck of a lot about
the language as we know it (and even further Englishizes it).
> >The lack of any such usage by Okrand, and the lack of any such
explanation,
> >would seem to tip the "there's no rule about it" situation in favor of
> >question words not being used as relative pronouns.
>
> From what I've read, the convention of using 'e' to mark the head noun in
a
> {-bogh} construction was exactly this type of situation - Okrand had never
> used it, but people started using it because it was logical. And Okrand
> later okayed it, even though the lack of any such prior Okrandian usage
> would, according to this logic, have tipped the sacles in favor of it not
> being allowed, and {-bogh} constructions only being allowed one noun. So
> this is not necessarily a good indication.
This is incorrect. The /-'e'/ for head noun rule has nothing to do with the
grammaticality of a sentence. You could always use nouns for both subject
and object of a /-bogh/ verb. At least, this was confirmed with sentences
like /Hov ghajbe'bogh ram rur pegh ghajbe'bogh jaj/ from Power Klingon. And
grammatically, there's no reason why you couldn't stick an /-'e'/ on any of
those nouns. What Krankor suggested (to the community, not to Okrand) was
that /-'e'/ could be used to indicate the head noun, the one that ties in
with the main verb. This seemed a reasonable thing to some people, but it
must be noted that it's a twisting of what /-'e'/ means according to TKD.
Okrand agreed to this and worked it into the language. This /-'e'/ is not,
from what I can tell, a new bit of grammar; it's a new interpretation of
something we could already do. Using /-'e'/ on the head noun is not at all
required. But PK proved we could use subjects and objects with a /-bogh/
verb.
> >Grammatically, according to all the rules we know, the following sentence
> >is
> >allowed:
> >
> >yaS HoH DujDaq.
> >In-the-ship kills the officer.
> >
> >I dare you to point to a rule that explains why I can't put a Type 5 noun
> >suffix on the subject.
> >
> >You can do some pretty ridiculous things when following the book exactly
as
> >written.
>
> I would assume that this sentence is grammatically sound but semantically
> unacceptable.
Precisely.
> Since the custom of the list seems to be to
> not use it because it's such a point of contention, I don't use it.
Exactly my point.
SuStel
Stardate 2000.6