tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Sun Jan 13 04:16:27 2002
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
Re: QAO (was: I had an idea, I don't know how...)
ja' 'ISqu':
>From what I see, the two diverse positions on QAO can be summed up as
>follows:
>
>The up-with-QAO position:
>#1: The pronoun 'e' can replace a sentence. A question is a sentence,
>therefore 'e' can replace it.
>#2: Okrand never explicitly banned QAO.
>Bottom line: A structure that is not explicitly banned should be permitted.
>
>The down-with-QAO position:
>#1: It is irrelevant that a question is a sentence.
>#2: Okrand never explicitly permitted or used QAO.
>Bottom line: A structure that is not explicitly permitted should be banned.
>
>lugh 'Iv?
Neither of those "bottom line" statements captures what I think is the
mainstream position, which is of course somewhere between the two extremes.
I'm a member of the camp which holds that where the boundaries of valid
Klingon grammar are incompletely specified, figuring out where the fences
should go is best done conservatively.
*My* bottom line is that we don't know how to interpret a question as an
object if we come across it. Okrand has neither given an example of one
nor explained what one would mean. The best, most well-formed arguments
I've seen for their being valid have a spot where the proponent has to say
"Oh, come on, it's *obvious* what it's supposed to mean." I agree that
it's usually obvious after it's been translated into English, but the
Klingon doesn't work for me.
-- ghunchu'wI' 'utlh