tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Wed Jan 02 08:32:30 2002

Back to archive top level

To this year's listing

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]

RE: QAO?! question as antecedent of 'e'!!

qen jIlab:

>(3) qatlh yaHlIj Dalon 'e' luSovbe'
>Likewise, in (3), whose grammaticality is often disputed,
>we have a grammatically complete question {qatlh yaHlIj Dalon}, followed by 
> > another *complete* sentence {'e' luSovbe'}.
>The object of that sentence is the pronoun 'e'.
>Although {qatlh yaHlIj Dalon} is the antecedent of 'e',
>it is not part of {'e' luSovbe'}. What could it be?
>It is not an adverb, it is not a header noun and
>most emphatically it is NOT an object. The object is {'e'}.

jIlab je:

>So, the problem is not whether questions can be used
>as objects of sentences: they cannot.

lab SuStel:

: Oh?  If we were to accept the grammaticality of your
: sentence (3), then  we'd also have to accept the
: grammaticality of this:

: qatlh yaHlIj Dalon vIneH.

: It doesn't make any sense, but it follows all of the
: known rules in the book.  Is it a question?
: Is it a statement?  Notice that the object IS the
: question, not /'e'/.

But I did say:  "So, the problem is not whether questions can be used
as objects of sentences: *they cannot.*"

lab SuStel:

: I get the feeling that this whole thing is being
: argued about once again simply because people feel
: like arguing about it.  Everyone denies actually
: WANTING to use questions as objects, but then they
: see there's no written rule against it, and they
: dance and caper around, point, and chuckle, "Ha ha!
: Lookie, lookie!  I can use a question as object and
: you can't say I'm wrong!  Hoo hoo!"

chaq ghoHqa' 'op nuvpu'. jIghoHqa'be' jIH.
qen jabbI'IDvam vImuv. tlhIngan Hol vIghojtaHvIS
qay'wI' law' vItu'. ghaytan qan 'op qay'wI'.
'ach jIHvaD chu'bej. muvuQmo' 'ej mumermo' vIqelchoH.
SovwIj vIDub neH vIneH. latlhpu' vIyIv vIneHbe'bej.

: Would everyone who wants the believe questions as
: objects are legitimate please raise their hands?

We could put this and other problems to the vote but
wouldn't it be pointless? When it comes to languages
believing in the grammaticality of structures is irrelevant.
And when it comes to Klingon, only one person has the final


Chat with friends online, try MSN Messenger:

Back to archive top level