tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Wed Aug 16 14:00:21 1995
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
Re: }} charghwI' writes his first poem
- From: "Mark E. Shoulson" <[email protected]>
- Subject: Re: }} charghwI' writes his first poem
- Date: Wed, 16 Aug 1995 14:00:21 -0400
>Date: Tue, 15 Aug 1995 21:07:20 -0700 (PDT)
>From: "R.B Franklin" <[email protected]>
>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.
Thank you! There was the canon I couldn't remember if we had. Sounds like
Marc's got support (OUR Marc, not Okrand.)
~mark