tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Wed Aug 16 00:07:20 1995
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
Re: }} charghwI' writes his first poem
- From: "R.B Franklin" <[email protected]>
- Subject: Re: }} charghwI' writes his first poem
- Date: Tue, 15 Aug 1995 21:07:20 -0700 (PDT)
Tue, 15 Aug 1995, ghItlh charghwI':
> According to Marc Ruehlaender:
> > > DaH QuchlaH no'wI''e' qa'pu' DaHoHta'bogh.
> ...
> > the way I think it SHOULD work would be
> > no'wI' DaHoHta'bogh qa'pu'
> > but that is obviously not an allowed phrase
Why is it not allowed? I think it should be {no'wI' DaHoHta'bogh qa'pu'}
and canon supports this type of construction.
In PK we have {jagh lucharghlu'ta'bogh HuH} (the bile of the enemy which
someone has defeated) or (the bile of the defeated enemy) or "the bile
of the vanquished". The final noun {HuH} of this N-N relative clause
construction is the object of the sentence {jagh lucharghlu'ta'bogh HuH
ghopDu'lIj lungaSjaj.} (Despite the weird O-S-V construction of this
ritual phrase.)
Another canon example of a N-N relative clause construction is on DS9
trading card #99 (1993 series): {He ghoSlu'bogh retlhDaq} (on the side
of a course which one follows) or (on the side of a followed course) or
"beside a passage". Here the locative {-Daq} is correctly placed on the
final noun of the N-N construction.
In a N-N construction, the reason Type 5 suffixes only go on the last
noun is because it is the main noun of the pair. There is nothing
ambiguous about saying {DaH QuchlaH no'wI' DaHoHta'bogh qa'pu'}.
{no'wI' DaHoHta'bogh qa'pu'} is still a N-N construction, and the final
noun {qa'pu'} is the main noun of the N-N pair and it is therefore the
subject of this sentence.
> It could be that my suggestion of using the topicalizer to
> point to the head noun (as is already deemed acceptable) can be
> expanded to violate the rule that the topicalizer can't be
> applied to the first noun in a noun-noun construction. I prefer
> this myself because it handles a wider range of instances where
> your suggestion would fail to indicate which noun of the
> noun-noun phrase is the head noun of the relative clause.
> Furthermore, I think that rule about the topicalizer being
> applied to the first noun was written BEFORE it was decided to
> use the topicalizer to indicate head nouns at all, so it is
> time to modify that rule.
jIQoch. lugh pab chutvam 'e' vIHar 'ej choHnISbe'lu'.
The head noun of a relative clause only needs to be indicated with
{-'e'} when the relative clause has two explicit nouns, and you can't
tell which one of them is functioning as the subject or object of the
main verb of the sentence.
If a relative clause contains of an explicit noun but uses a verb prefix
for the other noun, then the explicit noun (and not the noun indicated by
the prefix) is the head noun of the clause. Relative clauses with a noun
and prefix are not ambiguous so they don't need {-'e'}. (See Sec. 6.2.3.)
In any event, when you topicalize the head noun of a relative clause, you
are marking which noun in the clause is the subject or object of the main
verb. In the original sentence, "The souls of my ancestors which you have
killed can be happy now," the word "souls" is the subject of the main verb
so anyways you would not topicalize "ancestors" as you have done.
> charghwI'
yoDtargh