tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Wed Feb 22 21:24:17 1995
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
Re: Relative clauses
On Tue, 21 Feb 1995, William H. Martin wrote:
> 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.
qay'taHghach choQIjta'mo', DaH vIyajchu'. pab chu' vIchenmoH 'e'
vInIDbe'bej. mu'tlheghmeywIj vIchenmoHbogh luyajlu'chu' 'e' vIneH.
mu'tlhegh mutvam vIyajlu'chu'chugh vIlo'Qo'. pab lugh vIlo'meH
vIghoj 'e' vIneH neH.
> > 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.
Let me try a different approach; what do you think of:
'u' Sepmey'e' luSovbe'lu'bogh pa' jIleng.
"As for the unknown regions of the universe, I travel there."
> 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.
jIQochbe'. mu'tlheghmey moH vIchenmoH 'e' vIneHbe'bej.
> charghwI'
yoDtargh