[Tlhingan-hol] 'arDaq

[lojmIt tI'wI' nuv 'utlh]

Ironically, you are suggesting this solution to the person who invented this response to how you ask “Which weapon do you want?” and subsequently got Okrand’s approval to my method. At the time, a lot of other people were suggesting inappropriate uses of {nuq} for this, since many slightly slang versions of the question in English would replace the word “which” with “what”.

The point here is that, yes, if the number “three” is the name of the door identifying it, you can definitely “ask” the “question” by commanding the person to identify the door. Meanwhile, that doesn’t answer the question as to whether Klingon might have a way to do it with {‘ar} because:

1. The answer that replaces {‘ar} is a number.

2. Numbers in Klingon are grammatically squishy, because sometimes they are like stand-alone nouns, while other times they are describing explicit nouns and they are treated differently from nouns. We don’t even know for sure if they take noun suffixes, for instance, and if they do, we don’t know if they take a full set, or just a subset, similar to the way that adjectival verbs can only take a subset of verb suffixes while being used as adjectives.

3. {‘ar} is already exceptional among question words because it is not placed where the number would go that replaces it in the answer: {HIvje’ ‘ar DaneH?} {cha’ HIje’ vIneH.}

So, how exceptional is {‘ar}? This is an arbitrary question with one arbiter: Marc Okrand. We can guess, but without his explicit description of how numbers are used, I would have put numbers after the nouns they describe to be more consistent with the language structure, but he didn’t do that. He built in that inconsistency. So, my guess would have been wrong.

And you are guessing about whether or not {‘ar} can be used to ask a question which would be answered by {lojmIt wej vIwIv.} It’s a good guess, but it has no authority.

We have encountered a little corner of the grammar that has not been sufficiently described in the grammar, and for which we have no canon. After so many years, it is refreshing to see that there are shadows still yearning for light within the language.

lojmIt tI’wI’ nuv ‘utlh
Door Repair Guy, Retired Honorably



On Jun 16, 2014, at 10:11 PM, Brad Wilson <bmacliam at aol.com> wrote:

>  >>> ghItlh Steven Boozer:
> If I ask, "Which door do you choose?", it's still simple {lojmIt 'arDIch DawIv?} 
> You answer "I choose the third door." {lojmIt wejDIch vIwIv.}
> 
> There doesn't seem to be a way to ask the question that is answered by {lojmIt wej vIwIv}. "I choose door #3."
> >>>
> Is there are requirement that if the question uses {'arDIch} that the answer must use {number-DIch}?
> It would seem that {-DIch} is a "sequential" marker that identifies its headword either by appearance to the speaker, or importance, or by some other criterion.
> To elicit a response of {lojmIt wej vIwIv}, a question of the form {lojmIt DawIv 'e' yIngu'} would be in order (which isn't a question at all).
> gheyIl
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Tlhingan-hol mailing list
> Tlhingan-hol at kli.org
> http://mail.kli.org/mailman/listinfo/tlhingan-hol

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mail.kli.org/pipermail/tlhingan-hol/attachments/20140616/1fd77695/attachment.html>