tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Thu Apr 30 08:23:39 1998
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
Re: KLBC: -bogh
- From: Qov <[email protected]>
- Subject: Re: KLBC: -bogh
- Date: Thu, 30 Apr 1998 08:20:44 -0700
At 05:56 98-04-30 -0700, ghIlqer wrote:
}Hello.
}
}I have been lurking on this list for a few years now, really enjoying
}all the conversations that have been going on. But, I found something in
}TKD last night, while reading it over for the millionth time, that I
}strangely just now realized I don't understand.
majQa'. yIlaDtaH.
}It has to do with the
}Type 9 Verb Suffix {-bogh}. 6.2.3 gives an explanation of its use which
}is very confusting. Two sentences are shown to illustrate the
}relationship of the head noun to the relative clause:
}
}qIppu'bogh yaS officer who hit him/her
}yaS qIppu'bogh officer whom he/she hit
}
}I don't understand why the second sentence doesn't mean "he/she who hit
}the officer". As far as I can see here, all that changed from the first
}sentence to the next, is the subject and the object. The subject went
}from "officer" to "he/she" and the object went from "he/she" to
}"officer". Isn't that right? Okrand says that the relative clause and
}the head noun are the same in both sentences. Why? How do you know what
}the head noun is?
When there is only one noun, it is the head noun. If the sentence were:
yaS qIppu'bogh ghaH
...then your would be quite right to be confused. That can mean *either*
"the officer whom s/he hit" OR "s/he who hit the officer."
}It's too bad he doesn't give any examples that use two
}definite nouns.
There are at least a couple, but not in TKD. I'll get to them in a moment.
}Is the head noun the same in the following two
}sentences? If so which one is it?
}
}puq qIppu'bogh yaS
}yaS qIppu'bogh puq
}
}Does the first sentence mean "officer who hit the child" or "child who
}the officer hit" and likewise for the second one? I would think they are
}translated, "officer who hit the child" and "child who hit the officer",
}respectively, but then how on earth would you say "child who the officer
}hit" and "officer who the child hit"?
Both those phrases are ambiguous. Either could be referring to its object or
its subject. There is an optional way to disambiguate them. It's not in
TKD. Well it is, but you might not have thought of it. It is the
"topicalizer" noun suffix {-'e'}.
puq'e' qIppu'bogh yaS - the child whom the officer hit
puq qIppu'bogh yaS'e' - the officer who hit the child
Qanqor first speculated that this might be the way to disambiguate, and Marc
Okrand has confirmed it.
Here are the examples I can think of:
A secrecy proverb, from Power Klingon:
Hov ghajbe'bogh ram rur pegh ghajbe'bogh jaj
"A day without secrets is like a night without stars."
OR
"The secrets a day doesn't have are like the stars a night doesn't have."
You just have to choose the meaning that makes the most sense. Sometimes
you can hold both meanings in your head at once and the distinction doesn't
matter.
And from Skybox Card CARD S8
nuja' tlhIngan wIch ja'wI'pu' yIntaHvIS qeylIS'e' lIjlaHbe'bogh vay' batlh
'etlhvam chenmoHlu'pu'.
The {-'e'} on {qeylIS'e' lIjlaHbe'bogh vay'} ensures it is read as "Kahless
whom someone cannot forget" and not as "someone who cannot forget Kahless."
}I hope Qov or someone can explain this to me.
There you go. I think it might be in the FAQ, too. Holtej just posted the URL.
Qov [email protected]
Beginners' Grammarian