tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Mon Dec 02 20:07:02 1996
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
Re: Ship in which I fled, was Re: RE: KLBC: Road
- From: [email protected] (Alan Anderson)
- Subject: Re: Ship in which I fled, was Re: RE: KLBC: Road
- Date: Mon, 2 Dec 1996 23:07:13 -0500
ja' charghwI':
>...Okrand has explicitly
>stated in an interview in HolQeD that head nouns of relative
>clauses need to be subject or object of both the relative
>clause's verb and of the sentence's main verb. They can't be
>locatives.
However, on TKW page 111, we find the following:
{meQtaHbogh qachDaq Suv qoH neH}
"Only a fool fights in a burning house."
The head noun is the subject of the relative clause, but it is
a locative in the main clause.
>Think about it. If the head noun were a locative for the
>relative clause's verb, that noun is still a locative for the
>main verb. If it is locative for the main verb, it must also
>be locative for the relative clause as well. The relative clause
>modifies the noun, but the locative suffix changes the nature of
>that noun and its function in a sentence, giving it an adverbial
>function. That's what most Type 5 suffixes do. You can't have a
>relative adverbial phrase. It's just too weird.
Having the locative noun as the subject of the relative clause
tends to lose some of the weirdness, though. It cannot be the
locative of the relative clause, because it follows the verb.
It's not as weird as {jIHtaHbogh naDev vISovbe'}, at any rate...
-- ghunchu'wI'