tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Tue Feb 21 11:36:27 1995
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
Re: Relative clauses
According to R.B Franklin:
...
> But there is a canon example of an object with {-Daq}: {DujDaq ghoStaH.}
There is no indication that {ghoS} is not being used
intransitively here and {DujDaq} is being used as a locative.
...
> But it seems to me, that if you attach any kind of Type 5 noun suffix to
> the subject or object of a relative clause, in the process, you would
> also be marking that noun as the head noun of the clause to indicate that
> that word also has a syntactic relationship with the main verb of the
> sentence.
Krankor made up the use of {-'e'} to mark the head noun of a
relative clause and then checked with Okrand, who liked the
idea and approved of it. Krankor later decided that any old
Type 5 noun suffix would do the same thing, but so far as I
know, he never checked back with Okrand about THAT. You are
coming to the same conclusion as Krankor, with no more
authority behind your conclusion than he had.
If Okrand approves it, then it is law. I'm altogether behind
that. Meanwhile, he hasn't, and I really don't like what it
does to the language. It is much like my argument against the
freeform use of {-ghach}. The result of this kind of addition
to the grammar is easier translation from English to Klingon
and harder translation from Klingon to meaningful thought.
> I fail to see a distinction between marking the head noun of a relative
> clause with {-'e'} to indicate the direct object of the main verb,
> marking it with {-vaD} to indicate the indirect object, or marking it
> with {-Daq} as a locative.
The difference is that the suffix {-'e'} in a relative clause
can have only one meaning. The noun marked with it then becomes
the head noun of the relative clause, thereby becoming either
the subject or object of the main verb. The position of the
relative clause makes it quite clear which is the case.
The suffix {-Daq} in a relative clause might mean that the noun
attached to it is the head noun of the relative clause and a
locative for the main verb, or it might mean that it is a
locative for the verb of the relative clause and has nothing to
do with the main verb, or it might be a locative for the main
verb and have nothing to do with the relative clause. The word
order would be the same for all of these if the relative clause
is either the locative or object of the main verb.
The suffix {-vaD} might mean that the attached noun is the head
noun of the relative clause and indirect object of the main
verb, or it might be the indirect object of the relative clause
and have nothing to do with the main verb, or it might be the
indirect object of the main verb and have nothing to do with
the relative clause. Again, the word order would be the same.
The suffix {-vo'} might mean... By now, you should be getting
the point of my objection.
> For example, the relative clause, {'avwI' qIpbogh qama' vIlegh} is ambiguous
> since the head noun is not indicated. To indicate the head noun, you
> would add {-'e'} to the head noun to indicate whether the subject or the
> object of relative clause is the direct object of the main verb, {legh}.
> E.g. {'avwI' qIpbogh qama''e' vIlegh}: {qama'}, the subject of {qIp}, is
> also the object of {legh}.
This was a good and meaningful addition to the grammar that
Krankor offered us all. We are all better for it.
> But if I say {'avwI'vaD qIpbogh qama' tajwIj vInob}, I am marking
> {'avwI'} as the head noun of the relative clause with a different Type 5
> suffix. Although it is the direct object of {qIp}, by using {-vaD}, it is
> also simultaneously the indirect object of the main verb {nob}.
If you were to omit the suffix {-wIj}, this sentence could
mean, "I give the daggar to the guard whom the prisoner hit,"
(The guard is both the head noun of the relative clause and the
indirect object of the main verb) or it could mean, "I give the
prisoner's knife which hit him to the guard," (The guard is the
indirect object of the main verb, but since there is no direct
object for the relative clause, the prisoner's knife becomes
the head noun of the relative clause and the direct object of
the main verb) or it could mean, "I give the prisoner's daggar
which hit for the guard's benefit." (The guard is the indirect
object of the relative clause and since the relative clause has
no direct object, the prisoner's knife becomes the head noun of
the relative clause and the direct object of the main verb.
> Likewise, if I put {-Daq} on the subject or object of a relative clause
> it would also mark that word as the head of the clause:
> 'u' sepmeyDaq luSovbe'lu'bogh jIleng.
This example is not as ambiguous because the main verb has no
object and there is neither an explicit subject nor object for
the relative clause. The only explicit noun is a locative, and
if it is not tied to the main verb as locative for that main
verb, then the entire relative clause has no link to the main
verb. It strikes me as very strange and unambiguous. The weird
part is the {lu-} prefix because it clearly points to a
locative as its direct object.
I'd rather have Okrand really explain this (including any
warnings he might give as to the limits on its function) rather
than draw conclusions and go wild with its use in really ugly
sentences.
> I think the same process would apply for {-vo'} and {-mo'} as well.
And my objections would be the same as well.
> After having written all this, I discovered Captain Krankor basically
> says the same thing in HolQeD 1.3.
True, though again, this was never checked out with Okrand.
Krankor is terrific. He is my mentor and the source of all the
spark that has brought me to speak this language as well as I
do. Still, he is not infallable, having promoted a use of
{-ghach} which did not prove to be sound. I will always listen
to Krankor's advice and I will usually agree with him, though I
will not ALWAYS agree with him. This is an instance in which I
would far prefer to hear a verdict from Okrand and until then I
will shy away from this new convention.
> Additionally, the head noun of a relative clause does not need to be
> marked by {-'e'} when the head noun is explicitly stated and the tail
> noun is indicated by a pronoun. (q.v. Sec 6.2.3 and {ghItlh vIghItlhta'bogh
> DalaD'a'} (p. 172)).
Ummm. Well, this was kinda all that we had out of TKD. It seems
that Okrand didn't think about the potential of their being TWO
explicit nouns in a relative clause, so he didn't prepare for
it. It was an omission Krankor fixed in a way eloquent enough
that Okrand accepted the addition to the grammar. Furthermore,
it became the first really meaningful use of the suffix {-'e'},
since the "to be" construction is arbitrary and no other
examples exist to make the suffix really necessary (since vocal
inflection seems to do the same thing).
> Similarly, I don't think the head noun needs to be
> marked with {-'e'} when the relative clause contains {-lu'}; the
> indefinite subject automatically becomes the tail noun of the relative
> clause. E.g. Ho'Du'lIjDaq to'baj 'uSHom lughoDlu'bogh tu'lu'. (PK)
Quite true. I don't see how anyone could think otherwise,
unless of course they accept your suggested grammatical
construction, since there could be a locative or other Type 5
noun which was NOT intended to be the direct object of the
relative clause. Then the subject of the relative clause (which
would otherwise be the only explicit noun acting as subject or
object of the relative clause and would require no marking to
make it the head noun) would require the {-'e'} suffix to
make the meaning clear.
DujDaq SaQbogh puq'e' vIqIp.
Without {-'e'}, this could mean, "In the ship, I hit the child
who cried." or "I hit the child who cried, 'In the ship,'" or
"In the ship in which the child cried, I hit him."
Hmmm.
DujDaq muSbogh puq Saj vIqIp.
In the ship which the child hated, I hit the pet.
In the ship which the child's pet hated, I hit him/her/it/them.
In the ship, I hit the child's pet, which hated him.
In the ship, I hit the pet of the child who hated it.
I hit the child's pet which hated in the ship.
I hit the pet of the child who hated in the ship.
Without your construction, the first two options are invalid.
Four possible interpretations is already bad enough. If we
could get a ruling on using {-'e'} in a noun-noun construction,
we could further disambiguate by determining whether it is the
child or the pet who was hating. Meanwhile, there will still be
two ways to interpret the sentence, since the word order is the
same whether {DujDaq} is acting as a locative for the main verb
or just the relative clause.
> yoDtargh
charghwI'
--
\___
o_/ \
<\__,\
"> | Get a grip.
` |