[Tlhingan-hol] KLBC: "Which" and uses of question words

[Rohan Fenwick]

ghItlhpu' 'arHa, jatlh:
> Aloha, everybody. I myself am using the KLBC tag because I
> have a question that may be interesting to beginners -- but
> apologies if it is a little convoluted!

yItlhIjQo'! tlhIngan Hol wIghojtaH Hoch maH 'ej rut Qatlhlaw' chutmey. yIghel, yItlhob. :)

taH:
> qunnoQ asked: {lugh mu'tlhegh nuq ? nuq 'ej qatlh HIja'}

(poD vay')

> I suppose my question is: Can nuq stand in as it does here in
> {lugh mu'tlhegh nuq}? It implies to me something like "Which
> sentence is right?" but I don't think nuq really operates that way,
> because I don't think it is the right placement.

You're indeed correct. If it means anything, it means "what of the sentence is right?".

We have no canon for {nuq} in noun-noun constructions, but I do think it's possible to say things like {nuq taj} "the knife of what?", which would parallel {'Iv taj} "whose knife?". Similarly, {taj nuq} would be "what of the knife?". To contrive an example, {voDleH nuq vItlhapnIS} would mean "what [thing] belonging to the emperor must I take?".

So while {lugh mu'tlhegh nuq} is grammatical, it doesn't mean "which sentence is right?".

taH:
> Instead, should it be something like this?: {lughbogh mu'tlhegh
> 'oH nuq'e'?} "What is the sentence which is correct?"

Yep, that's grammatical. Culturally an imperative is fine here too and is probably more idiomatic Klingon: {mu'tlhegh lugh yIngu'} "identify the correct sentence!".

taH:
> There may be some potential confusion between the two English
> words that sound alike: "which" (the question word, which doesn't
> seem to have a direct Klingon analog) and "which" a word that
> marks relative clauses (in Klingon marked with {-bogh}. Am I
> correctly disentangling these?

Yes, you've done a good job of distinguishing those from one another.

taH:
> Additionally, can nuq and qatlh stand on their own as they do in
> {nuq 'ej qatlh HIja'}? My guess is that they can, but I am unsure.

On this one it's more difficult because {nuq} and {qatlh} are wanting to serve as relative pronouns here: "tell me what [it is] and why [it is so]". But question words can't replace relative pronouns as such in Klingon, and so there needs to be some other tool put to work to express the idea. So no, I don't think they can.

I'd say "tell me what it is and why it is!" as {lughwI' yIngu', 'ej meq yIQIj} "identify the correct one, and explain the reason".

QeS 'utlh 		 	   		  
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mail.kli.org/pipermail/tlhingan-hol/attachments/20151206/b583e1d5/attachment.html>