tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Thu Feb 15 09:20:53 1996
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
Re: KLBC> HaDIbaHpu' le' mach
>Date: Wed, 14 Feb 1996 18:25:50 -0800
>From: [email protected] (Alan Anderson)
>charghwI' writes:
>> The relative clause
>>describes a noun. You need a noun there to describe.
>But can't that noun be elided? 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.
>{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".
I think I'm with charghwI' here, though I concede we don't have solid canon
about this. A bare relativized verb with NO explicit head-noun just
doesn't cut it for me. A relative clause modifies SOMETHING. If that
something isn't important enough to state, it's not important enough to
modify.
~mark