tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Sun Feb 01 00:38:23 1998
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
Re: Locatives and {-bogh} (was Re: KLBC Poetry)
- From: "David Trimboli" <[email protected]>
- Subject: Re: Locatives and {-bogh} (was Re: KLBC Poetry)
- Date: Sun, 1 Feb 1998 00:25:22 -0500
-----Original Message-----
From: Terrence Donnelly <[email protected]>
To: Multiple recipients of list <[email protected]>
Date: Saturday, January 31, 1998 12:20 AM
Subject: Re: Locatives and {-bogh} (was Re: KLBC Poetry)
>And so would I. But canon does exist: the {meQtaHbogh...} example and
>the {'u' SepDaq Sovlu'be'bogh...} example from the Skybox card. My
>initial desire was to ignore these as anomalies, but I'm getting more
>uncomfortable with that position.
I agree that {-Daq}, {-vo'}, {-vaD}, and {-mo'} seem much like
postpositions, but something like {Qe'Daq Qaw'bogh nawlogh SoplI' HoD}
really isn't particularly difficult to understand, and it follows both the
known rules and canon. It is no more vague than many other sentences in
Klingon. The locative noun phrase {Qe' Qaw'bogh nawlogh} has received it's
locative suffix, and the suffix is marking the correct noun in that phrase.
The {-'e'} disambiguator is always optional. It is a convenience, not a
requirement, and if it ceases to be convenient, don't try to use it.
Until a Klingon comes and tells us (or Okrand) that {-Daq} does not belong
in this position, I do not see any revolution coming.
SuStel
Stardate 98086.8