[86785] in tlhIngan-Hol
Re: Sentences as objects
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (qurgh lungqIj)
Wed Nov 4 16:34:13 2009
In-Reply-To: <504908.2979.qm@web82607.mail.mud.yahoo.com>
From: qurgh lungqIj <qurgh@wizage.net>
Date: Wed, 4 Nov 2009 16:31:44 -0500
To: tlhingan-hol@kli.org
Errors-to: tlhingan-hol-bounce@kli.org
Reply-to: tlhingan-hol@kli.org
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
