tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Thu Feb 15 07:06:06 1996
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
Re: KLBC> HaDIbaHpu' le' mach
According to Alan Anderson:
>
> charghwI' writes:
> >While there is no explicit rule against it, using a relative
> >verb with no explicit noun is gibberish.
>
> I won't go that far. I reserve the word "gibberish" to describe
> complete nonsense. {vIlajbogh} can mean one of only two things,
> and the prefix on the main verb completely determines whether it
> means "I/me who accepts it" or "that which I accept". The first
> possibility isn't even necessarily a reasonable thing to say, if
> you believe that {-bogh} is restrictive.
Okay, lets pull out our TKDs. 6.2.3, page 63:
"... Like adjectives, they describe nouns... The noun modified
by a relative clause is the head noun... The whole construction
(relative clause plus head noun), as a unit, is used in a
sentence as a noun..."
What you are proposing is a headless relative clause. There is
no basis for considering this to be a valid grammatical
construction. None. pagh. ngoDna' 'oHba'. This is not really
something worthy of argument. It is simply clear and certain.
If you were to have what you might call a relative clause with
no head noun, you would have no basis for using it in any
sentence, since the only rule we have for using relative clause
says that the whole construction, which includes a head noun,
is used as a noun in a sentence. If you have no head noun, then
you don't have a whole construction and you can't use it as a
noun in a sentence, and if you can't do THAT, what CAN you do
with it? I suggest that you can't do ANYTHING with it. A
relative clause with no head noun is a word; a sentence
fragment which is meaningless without context. In particular,
the context that you need is a head noun to which you may apply
it. Without that, there is no socket in a Klingon sentence into
which you may plug it.
choyajchu''a'?
> > The relative clause
> >describes a noun. You need a noun there to describe.
>
> But can't that noun be elided?
In a word, no.
> I think {vIlegh} is just fine as
> a complete sentence. The object is there, but it is not stated
> explicitly. {vIleghbogh vISop} ought to be easily understood.
In English, "Me food eat," is understandable, though it is not
a sentence. It is not really even an abreviated sentence. It is
a pile of words from which one can derive meaning, even though
it is not grammatical. You just read the words and make
assumptions about the mistakes that were made and you translate
it into "I eat food," or "I eat my food," which both lead
toward pretty much the same original thought and go with it.
That doesn't mean you want to go around saying, "Me car drive.
Friend in seat. See girls. Wave. Throwing trash them began to
we. Butch and Sundance at the corral. Rubber stripes and blue
smoke." Conveying thoughts does not always constitute using a
language.
> {Hoch vIleghbogh vISop} is certainly clearer, and I do in fact
> prefer it, but I won't call the phrase without an explicit head
> noun "gibberish".
And I would. I do. I will.
> -- ghunchu'wI' batlh Suvchugh vaj batlh SovchoH vaj
charghwI'
--
\___
o_/ \
<\__,\
"> | Get a grip.
` |