tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Wed Aug 16 22:08:35 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: Wed, 16 Aug 1995 19:08:35 -0700 (PDT)
On Wed, 16 Aug 1995, Marc Ruehlaender wrote:
> HoHbogh Ha'DIbaH'e' qampu'
>
> be acceptable for "the feet of the animal which killed him"
> (if "him" has been specified in previous sentences) as opposed to
Sec. 3.4 says only the last noun can take Type 5 suffixes, so you can't
put {-'e'} on {Ha'DIbaH} here. Also, the plural for body parts is {-Du'}.
> HoHbogh Ha'DIbaH qampu'
>
> "the animal's feet which killed him"? i.e. in the first
> example the killer is the Ha'DIbaH whereas in the second
> it is the qampu'?
"The feet of the animal which killed him" is ambiguous in English; either
the feet or the animal could be the agent of the killing. But in Klingon,
you can disambiguate the two by using the correct verb prefix:
HoHbogh Ha'DIbaH qamDu' The animal is doing the killing
luHoHbogh Ha'DIbaH qamDu' The feet are doing the killing
However, if both nouns were singular or plural, then the Klingon
would be just as ambiguous as the English. In such a case,
charghwI' has suggested putting {-'e'} on whichever noun is the true
head noun of the clause. But currently, the rules say you can't put
{-'e'} on the first noun of a N-N construction. Whether or not it is
acceptable to put {-'e'} on the first noun of a N-N construction when it
is the head noun of relative clause is one of the questions we put on a
list to ask Dr. Okrand at the qep'a'.
> MArc 'Dochlangan'
yoDtargh