tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Tue Aug 13 11:15:08 1996
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
Re: tlhab jaj
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
>Date: Tue, 13 Aug 1996 01:40:38 -0700
>From: "A.Appleyard" <[email protected]>
> jangpu' "Mark E. Shoulson" <[email protected]>:-
>> Although -bogh clauses are conjoined with "'ej" (per TKW), you are not here
>> conjoining -bogh clauses; you're conjoining noun phrases ...
>> I'm sorry, I can't follow this. I think I missed something.
> naDev vIlughmoH 'e' vInID A.Appleyard:-
>> QaQ 'oH. vIleghpu'.
>> jabbI'IdghomDaq lut wanI'mey DIja'chuqchugh 'ej vaj lut De' wI'angchugh,
>> (lut legh 'e' Hech nuvpu''e')vaD lut bel QIH 'oH
> {lut legh 'e' Hech nuvpu''e'} = is a relative clause used as a noun, and
>that noun wants a -vaD suffix: "for people who intend to see the story": where
>should the -vaD go?
Aha. A problem we've had for the longest time. If you read the HolQeD
interview with Marc Okrand on relative clauses, I *think* he implies that
you can't use a relative clause directly as anything but an object or a
subject of a verb. You'd have to use two sentences or something (wa'Hu'
loD legh vavwI'. loDvamvaD nob vInob.) I believe Nick Nicholas had an
article somewhere in which he analyzed the way different languages had
their relative clauses, and how some permit the head-nouns to be only the
subject or object, and some to be other elements, and similarly how some
permitted the relative clauses only to fill certain places in the matrix
sentence and some were freer. Is this right, Nick? Can you clarify the
way some other, similarly-constrained languages manage for us?
I may be misremembering what the article and interview said.
~mark
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: 2.6.2
Comment: Processed by Mailcrypt 3.4, an Emacs/PGP interface
iQB1AwUBMhDFM8ppGeTJXWZ9AQFaGAMAp3smo/u3J8iPW2vqAMc/GnW2CKpwEY1q
H7Y6f9eqAd0HC46xmZF02UPFH6zZztnJyeSsHJRP2iSszTvrFj22ArJ3xiOE48Au
NczlTeHjCDQsyIuTudiZMp9M/WKrTI3+
=G0C1
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----