tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Fri Aug 14 20:38:00 1998
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
Re: jIpaw. jIlegh. jIchargh.
- From: Robyn Stewart <[email protected]>
- Subject: Re: jIpaw. jIlegh. jIchargh.
- Date: Fri, 14 Aug 1998 20:36:15 -0700 (PDT)
---David Trimboli <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> Taken out of KLBC. Objections ahead.
>
> From: Robyn Stewart <[email protected]>
>
>
> >---Burt Clawson <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> >> > > bImoHchu' SoH. vaj verengan ngaghta'bogh SoS'e' vay' Darur.
> >> > > "You are perfectly ugly. Thus, you resemble someone whose
> >mother has
> >> > > mated with a Ferengi."
>
> >> HISlaH./verengan ngaghta'bogh SoS/ was supposed to be the clause
> >modifying
> >> /vay' Darur/. That's why I stuck that nasty /'e'/ on the end of
> >/SoS/. I
> >> sweated over that sentence for nearly 20 minutes, then just went
> >ahead and
> >> sent it. I seem to be missing some ultra-important thing here
> >regarding
> >> relative clauses, and purpose clauses. Any suggestions?
> >
> >Nope nope. You didn't miss it. I just didn't completely explain my
> >analysis technique. /verengan ngaghta'bogh SoS'e'/ properly modified
> >/vay'/ and the /-'e'/ suffix was the right thing to add to make that
> >clear. Any relative clause can be thought of as its head noun,
plus a
> >modifer. "The man who stole my cargo ate the pie" is an extended
form
> >of "the man ate the pie." /chab Sop tepwIj nIHbogh loD'e'/ is an
> >extended form of /chab Sop loD/. Because I didn't completely
> >understand your sentence, I reduced the RC to its head noun to try to
> >understand it, giving /SoS vay' Darur/. That's how I saw that it
> >reduced to "A mother's something/someone" Change /vay'/ to /puq/ and
> >you have "the child of a mother". DaH choyaj'a'?
>
> Now, we've got a little problem here. {verengan ngaghta'bogh SoS'e'}
> "mother who mated with a Ferengi." Fine. {SoS puq} "mother's child."
> Fine. {SoS'e' puq}. Not fine.
>
> TKD 3.4 forbids us from putting Type 5 noun suffixes on the first
noun in a
> noun-noun construction. But if you're going to use {-'e'} to
disambiguate
> the relative clause, you're going to have to violate this rule.
>
> The sentence will have to be: {vaj verengan ngaghta'bogh SoS puq
Darur}.
> This seems a little vague to me, and it would likely be
misinterpreted as
> talking about the child having mated with the Ferengi!
>
> You might make it a wee bit longer: {verengan ngaghta' SoS. SoSvam
puq
> Darur.} "A mother has mated with a Ferengi. You resemble this
mother's
> child."
I was thinking in ternm of N1 being the entire relative clause, and
could argue that that made it different, but I won't. Bleah. wa'maH
wa'leS.
==
Qov - Beginners' Grammarian
_________________________________________________________
DO YOU YAHOO!?
Get your free @yahoo.com address at http://mail.yahoo.com