tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Sun Feb 01 11:23:33 1998

Back to archive top level

To this year's listing

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]

Re: Locatives and {-bogh} (was Re: KLBC Poetry)


On Fri, 30 Jan 1998 21:23:37 -0800 (PST) Terrence Donnelly 
<[email protected]> wrote:

> At 03:55 PM 1/30/98 -0800, charghwI' wrote:
> >According to Terrence Donnelly:
> >> 3. The head noun of the {-bogh} clause can also take those roles in
> >> the matrix clause which are marked by the other Type 5 verb suffixes.
> >> 
> >>      |-------------|                         |--------------|
> >>      meQtaHbogh qachvo' vIHaw'       jor pengvo' Haw'bogh Duj
> >>                     |--------|       |------|
> >>      I flee the burning building     The torpedo from which the ship is
> >>                                      fleeing explodes.
> >
> >Let's try that second example again:       |------------------|
> >                                       jor pengvo' Haw'bogh Duj
> >                                       |--..................--|
> >
> >                                       The ship which flees
> >                                       from the torpedo
> >                                       explodes. 
...
> >> 4. You can't say things like "the ship in which I fled" because
> >> the locative (or other Type 5-suffixed noun) is not the subject or
> >> object of the {-bogh} verb, and so can't be the head noun of the clause.
> >
> >Well, that's what you just tried to do in your second example.
> >That's why it doesn't mean what you suggested it meant.
> 
> Dang, you're right.  I was trying to come up with an example where the
> locative of the matrix clause was the subject of the relative clause,
> and I got it exactly backwards! Oh well.  
> 
> But, as an example of a matrix locative with an _object_ head noun,
> how about {pengvo' baHta'bogh toQDuj Haw' veSDuj}, 'the warship flees
> from the torpedo launched by the Bird-of-Prey'. 

This sorta-kinda works, but only because in the only canon 
example of using {Haw'} that I have noted, it is intransitive 
and connected to the thing one flees by {-vo} [KTW, page 91]:

{may'meyDajvo' Haw'be' tlhIngan.} "A Klingon does not run away 
from his battles."

If we parse it as we hear it, it is rather confusing:

pengvo' = From the torpedo

pengvo' baHta'bogh = It, which has accomplished firing from the 
torpedo

pengvo' baHta'bogh toQDuj = The Bird-of-Prey which has 
successfully fired from the torpedo

pengvo' baHta'bogh toQDuj Haw'... This is the first moment 
during which we come to think maybe {pengvo'} is not a locative 
for the relative clause. If {Haw'} were transitive, we would 
also have assumed that {toQDuj} was the direct object of {Haw'}. 
It is only {Haw'}'s apparent intransitivity and special 
relationship with the suffix {-vo'} that makes us reevaluate the 
grammatical function of {pengvo'} to be direct object of {baH} 
(which doesn't need a direct object), ignoring {-vo'} for its 
function in the relative clause, yet applying it only in its 
relationship to {Haw'}.

At this point, after this reevaluation, we can figure out the 
meaning, but we have to unscramble four words in memory. By 
comparison, {meQtaHbogh qachDaq SuvtaH poHpu' neH} is far 
simpler:

meQtaHbogh = it which is burning

meQtaHbogh qachDaq = In the building which is burning [We know 
we need a subject-head noun for {meQtaHbogh} and {qach} is the 
only candidate. We have to ignore the {-Daq} in order for this 
to work, then interpret the {-Daq} as functioning in a larger 
grammatical unit we have not received yet, since a locative 
cannot follow the verb to which it applies.

The rest of the sentence is straightforward.

Meanwhile, if we interpret the {-Daq} to be applied to the 
entire relative clause instead of to the single word {qach}, 
your example might be written as:

peng'e' baHta'bogh toQDujvo' Haw' veSDuj.

Now, if we parse it a word at a time, as heard, we don't go so 
far before we can figure things out:

peng'e' = The TORPEDO

peng'e' baHta'bogh = The torpedo which he fired

peng'e' baHta'bogh toQDujvo' = From the torpedo which the 
Bird-of-Prey fired. [We have to interpret it this way because we 
know that {peng} is the direct object of {baH} and head noun of 
the relative clause. We also know that the relative clause has 
{-Daq} on it, so it is a locative for a larger grammatical unit 
which is about to follow. That means that the head noun of the 
relative clause is acting as locative for this larger 
grammatical unit.]

The rest of the sentence parses easily. See how much simpler 
this would be? Of course, this is not yet sanctioned.

...
> >> (I doubt if Okrand had this in mind when he developed it; it's
> >> amazing how these things dovetail long after their creation!) It's way
> >> more flexible than the previous understanding.  Since the {-bogh}
> >> construction is often used adjectivally, this would allow you to
> >> use nouns so modified in oblique roles:
> >> 
> >>      qeylISvaD lIjlaHbe'bogh vay' maSuv
> >>          We fight for Kahless the Unforgettable
> >
> >Or, as I've been arguing, it might be:
> >
> >qeylIS'e' lIjlaHbe'bogh vay'vaD maSuv.
> >
> >The {-vaD} is applied to the entire relative clause and the
> >{-e'} makes us know that it is the head noun of the relative
> >clause, making it the noun that counts to the main clause.
> >
> 
> At first glance, this seems as odd to me as the suggestions about
> putting Type 5 suffixes on {-bogh} itself.  It seems very counter-intuitive
> to me.  I always interpret relative clauses as being sort of optional
> to the sentence, providing more information about the head noun but not
> being essential to the grammar of the matrix clause.  I'd parse your 
> sentence as {qeylIS'e'(lIjlaHbe'bogh vay')vaD maSuv}, with the part in 
> parens being optional supplimental information about the head noun.  
> Dropping that optional material yields *{qeylIS'e'vaD maSuv}, which seems 
> to me both odd and illegal.

Meanwhile, move the parenthesis by one syllable and you get my 
intent:

qelIS('e' lIjtaHbe'bogh vay')vaD maSuv.

If you can put the right paren in the middle of {vay'vaD}, you 
should not have a problem putting the left one in the middle of 
{qelIS'e'}. The fact is, {-'e'} is applied within the relative 
clause, while {-vaD} is applied within the main clause. If one 
of these is acceptable, the other should be as well. The result 
would be a lot easier to understand as the sentence flowed to us 
without having a natural tendency to translate it one way as it 
flows, then notice that things are REALLY not making sense, then 
go back and reassign grammatical function to the last four words.

I'm looking at this totally from the angle that I want the 
Klingon, as spoken, to be easy to understand clearly. If it 
takes extra effort to preprocess it before speaking it, I don't 
care. What I care about is clarity while being understood, not 
ease while being verbalized. I want the work done by the speaker 
to pay off by giving clear meaning to the listener. This 
combination of using Krankor's Rule, using {-'e'} to mark the 
head noun, then separately applying the other Type 5 at the end 
of the entire relative clause really pays off in this regard.

> >> Anyway, I said I wouldn't accept this without a good argument, and
> >> dang if ~mark didn't make one!
> >> 
> >> -- ter'eS
> >
> >Well, not exactly. He argued against putting the Type 5 suffix
> >on the object which was head noun.
> 
> I can't see any logical objection to it.  If the other premises of this
> interpretation are valid, then I don't see why a Type-5 on an object
> head noun is any less valid.  It's true that it splits the symmetry of
> the meaning stacks, but I think a listener could suspend resolution of
> the matrix clause while processing the intervening relative clause without
> too much difficulty.

And I completely disagree. Klingon lacks English's helping 
words. Most grammatical function is clarified by the interaction 
of the affixes and the word order. In most cases, this works 
even if you don't know the meanings of the root words. At least 
you know the grammatical function of each word.

Given your preferred method of applying Type 5 suffix to the 
head noun of a relative clause even when it is the object, we 
lose the ability to disambiguate the grammar. By your method:

<A>vaD <B>bogh <C>na' <D>taH E<Hey>.

This could mean as you wish it to mean, "The apparent <E> is 
<D>ing for the <A> which is <B>ed by the definite <C>." It 
could also mean, "The apparent <E> is <D>ing the definite <C> 
which <B>s for <A>." Without knowing what the words mean and 
which of these two meanings makes more sense in context, you 
can't tell what is being said here.

Meanwhile, with my suggested method, it would be:

<A>'e' <B>bogh <C>na'vaD <D>taH E<Hey>.

The apparent <E> is <D>ing for the <A> which is <D>ed by the 
definite <C>. There is no other way to interpret it. If the 
other meaning is intended, it would be said as:

<A> <B>bogh <C>na'vaD <D>taH E<Hey>.

You might interpret that as {-vaD} acting as {-'e'} within the 
relative clause, but for me, that is not necessary. There is no 
need for a universal rule for Type 5s to do this. Were that the 
case, there would be conflict in my previous example because 
{-vaD} and {-'e'} both exist in the same relative clause.

Meanwhile, it is simply true that if there is no {-'e'} present 
to warn you that something special is going on within the 
relative clause, having {-vaD} on the subject of a relative 
clause applies the meaning of {-vaD} to the word to which it is 
attached. Since this Type 5 suffix has its function in the main 
clause (which is obvious because it is in the wrong place for it 
to function as such within the relative clause because it 
follows the verb there), that implies that the word to which it 
is attached has a function both within the relative clause AND 
within the main clause. The only word that does this is the head 
noun. Looking at the example again:

<A> <B>bogh <C>na'vaD <D>taH E<Hey>.

We know that <C>na'vaD can't be indirect object of <B>bogh. It 
can only function as indirect object of <D>taH.

It also cannot be indirect object of <D>taH and NOT subject of 
<B>bogh, because if it was, it would have to PRECEED <A>, since 
an indirect object has to preceed a direct object. It's location 
tells us it HAS to be subject of <B>bogh, despite the Type 5 
suffix. There really isn't a wrong way of interpreting this. We 
are forced by the existing rules of grammar to interpret this 
correctly.

The only new rule necessary arises when we want the object of 
the relative clause to be the head noun of the relative clause 
and the Type 5 noun in the main clause. That new rule combines 
two old rules. One is that {-'e'} disambiguates the head noun of 
a relative clause when both explicit subject and object of the 
verb within the relative clause exist. This is the Krankor Rule.

The other is an extention of the rule which moves the Type 5 
noun suffix to trailing adjectival verbs. The Type 5 suffix is 
applied to the whole noun phrase rather than just to the noun 
itself. Here, a relative clause is acting as a noun phrase. As a 
whole, the clause is functioning as a single modified noun.

> -- ter'eS 

charghwI'

Back to archive top level