tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Fri Feb 24 11:20:50 1995
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
Re: KLBC: Question about -bogh
- From: "ADM::RSORENSEN"@tiny.computing.csbsju.edu
- Subject: Re: KLBC: Question about -bogh
- Date: Fri, 24 Feb 1995 12:34:09 -0600 (CST)
> > This chocolate is for the officer whom he hit.
> > ? yaSvaD qIppu'bogh 'oH yuchvam'e'
>
> Ignore the relative clause altogether:
>
> * yaSvaD 'oH yuchvam'e'.
>
> This is not a valid sentence. You are going from the English,
> "This chocolate is for the officer," and you are not
> considering the limits of the <noun pronoun noun'e'>
> construction.
I spent a good chunk of yesterday evening trying to find the limits to
which you refer. Do you have a source I can look at? I haven't had time to
go back to the dawn of time in the archives yet, so my apologies if I'm
holding up a dead horse for further abuse.
>From MO's description of -vaD (for, intended for) and the "to be" section,
it seems this sentence can say:
As for this chocolate, it is intended for the officer.
> This sentence steps beyond those limits...
If I read your interpretation correctly, then the examples in TKD, page 68,
could be read, e.g.:
In his quarters, the commander is...
...Is shaving? Dressing? Sleeping? It doesn't specifywhat he's doing in
his quarters, only that presently that's his location. Likewise, if I intend
"this chocolate" for that officer, I may not need to specify what he does
with it, or why I'm providing it.
I agree, the statement is inherently vague with respect to my motive for
providing chocolate (or a medikit, or whatever). I think context would
provide some clue as to my intent. Maybe chocolate's a great palliative
for klingon wounds.
> > (pg. 64 para. 2): "The whole construction...is used...as a noun".
>
> Except for the use of Type 5 noun suffixes applied to verbs
> that are used adjectivally, or any noun suffix following a verb
> with the {-wI'} or {-ghach} suffixes, we have no justification
> for applying noun suffixes to verbs.
But the verb here is in a construction which, according to my quote from
MO above, acts like a noun. I know, it looks awkward, and if a decision is
ever made about where to put n-5 suffixes in a rel clause this is probably
not the place.
'ej vaj tlhetlh
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Roger Sorensen "...and so it goes."
St. John's University Computing Services -- Linda Ellerbee
Collegeville MN 56321-2000
[email protected] v:612-363-2035 f:612-363-2761
-------------------------------------------------------------------