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

[Bellerophon, modeler]

I'm glad I was reading this thread. I was not aware that nuq and 'Iv can be
used as verbs the way pronouns can, as SuStel pointed out. I think I
recently wrote to this list something like <Dochvam 'oH nuq'e'?>, which I
suppose would be okay, but <Dochvam nuq?> is so much simpler.
Could you, then, ask a question like <puq nuqtaH yaS?>
~'eD

On Sun, Dec 6, 2015 at 8:53 PM, lojmIt tI'wI' nuv 'utlh <
lojmitti7wi7nuv at gmail.com> wrote:

> 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
> http://mail.kli.org/mailman/listinfo/tlhingan-hol
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Tlhingan-hol mailing list
> Tlhingan-hol at kli.org
> http://mail.kli.org/mailman/listinfo/tlhingan-hol
>
>


-- 
My modeling blog:          http://bellerophon-modeler.blogspot.com/
My other modeling blog:  http://bellerophon.blog.com/
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mail.kli.org/pipermail/tlhingan-hol/attachments/20151206/7977bb9f/attachment-0001.html>