tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Wed Nov 04 13:33:42 2009

Back to archive top level

To this year's listing



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

Re: Sentences as objects

qurgh lungqIj (qurgh@wizage.net)



On Wed, Nov 4, 2009 at 3:44 PM, Terrence Donnelly <
terrence.donnelly@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
> This isn't the same thing as your original {jagh jeylu' 'e' vIQIj}. I'm not
> disputing that {QIj} can take an object, such as {Qagh} or {'e'}. Heck, even
> {jatlh} can take an object: eg.,{SoQ vIjatlh}. But Okrand clearly said that
> discourse before a verb of saying is not the object of the verb and doesn't
> take {'e'}.
>
> "The enemy is defeated," I explained.
> I explained that the enemy has been defeated.
> The enemy is defeated. I explained this.
>
>
I guess I see the verb "to explain" as unable to take a direct quote, even
in English. In the first sentence "explain" is used to describe the type of
speech your using, but that's a feature of English. You said something in
order to explain something else. If I wanted to use a direct quote in a
sentence with {QIj} I'd probably say:

<jagh jeylu'> jIjatlh ghu' vIQIjmeH

You have to explain a thing or a process, you can't explain a direct quote.
The last two sentences are the same, the only difference is in the
semantics. The idea being moved from one mind to another is the same.


> I'd love to see an example of this, because I'm having a very hard time
> envisioning a situation in which a speech act can be delivered without
> speaking, or something equivalent to speaking;
>

You could use pictures, you could mime, you could read... there are many
ways to explain something. When you put together one of those IKEA tables,
the instructions explain how to do it and there are very few words in them.

qurgh






Back to archive top level