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

[lojmIt tI'wI' nuv 'utlh]

Thank you. This is interesting. I think that you are right. There is no restriction of asking this kind of question because, just like any other question formed with {nuq} or {‘Iv}, the answer could be formed by repeating the sentence verbatim with the answer replacing the question word, and you are not relying on any hidden form of the missing Klingon question word corresponding to the English “which”.

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



> On Dec 6, 2015, at 6:27 PM, Rohan Fenwick <qeslagh at hotmail.com> wrote:
> 
> jIjatlhpu' jIH:
> > 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?".
> 
> mujang SuStel, jatlh:
> > Actually we have a couple of canonical sentences that show that {nuq} 
> > and {'Iv} can act like verbs in the same way that pronouns can, and 
> > Okrand confirmed this in an MSN post that I don't seem to have archived.
> 
> (poD vay')
> 
> Oh yes, I'm well aware of the verbal usage of {nuq} and {'Iv}. I know that {taj nuq} as a complete utterance would only ever be interpreted as a pro-verbal construction "what is a knife?". What I'm saying is that we don't have any canon for the use of these pronouns specifically in a noun-noun construction: that is, not just happening to appear next to a noun, but taking the same kind of genitive relationship that is usual in a noun-noun construction. In other words, can we say things like {'Iv 'etlh Dayan} "whose sword are you wielding?", or {voDleH nuq vItlhapnIS} "what thing of the emperor's must I take?".
> 
> Canon is silent on this, but I don't see any reason why not, and in these instances any ambiguity with pro-verbal constructions would be resolved by the presence of another finite verb in the sentence, which would force a nominal interpretation of {'Iv} and {nuq} instead of a verbal one.
> 
> QeS 'utlh
> _______________________________________________
> Tlhingan-hol mailing list
> Tlhingan-hol at kli.org <mailto:Tlhingan-hol at kli.org>
> http://mail.kli.org/mailman/listinfo/tlhingan-hol <http://mail.kli.org/mailman/listinfo/tlhingan-hol>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mail.kli.org/pipermail/tlhingan-hol/attachments/20151206/7b967163/attachment.html>