tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Sun Feb 01 16:00:48 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)

Keep reading, I come up with something I think is really cool towards the
bottom!

-----Original Message-----
From: William H. Martin <[email protected]>
To: Multiple recipients of list <[email protected]>
Date: Sunday, February 01, 1998 2:45 PM
Subject: Re: Locatives and {-bogh} (was Re: KLBC Poetry)


>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:

I, for one, don't claim that any Type 5 suffix can mark the head noun of the
relative clause.  However, it just happens to always work that way.

The head noun is that which is going to have a place in both the relative
clause and the main clause.  If the head noun's role is locative in the main
clause (it is forbidden for it to be locative in the relative clause -- ship
in which I fled) then the head noun WILL receive a Type 5 suffix.

'u' SepmeyDaq luSovbe'lu'bogh maleng.
We travel in unknown regions of the universe.

{Sepmey} happens to be the head noun, and it happens to get the Type 5
suffix.  It will always work out that way when using any Type 5.

puqvaD qIpbogh yaS ghe'naQ vIbom.
I sing an opera to the officer who hit the child.

This shows that I sing to the child.  Since relative clauses cannot take
oblique nouns (like those with {-vaD}), the {puqvaD} must be playing a role
in the main sentence.  But {qIpbogh yaS} seems to be a relative clause
without a connection to the main sentence, until you see that it's head noun
is {puq}.  Thus, the head noun will ALWAYS be the one with the Type 5
suffix, if there is one.

The Type 5 suffix is NEVER a requirement of the relative clause.  It is a
requirement of the main sentence (except {-'e'} nouns, which are entirely
optional in any case).

><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.

Unless you can see the ship in which I fled, a more accurate description of
the alternate reading would be "For <A>, the apparent <E> is <D>ing the
definite <C> which <B>s."  But this is just a little ambiguity which occurs
often enough in Klingon.

You're simply showing an example where it's not clear if <C> is the object
of the main clause or the subject of the relative clause, or both.  You're
inventing this ambiguity.

jatlh tlhIngan jIH
He said, "I am a Klingon."
The Klingon said, "Me."

Which is it?

>You might interpret that as {-vaD} acting as {-'e'} within the
>relative clause, but for me, that is not necessary.

The {-vaD} noun, by process of elimination, is the ONLY possible candidate
for the head noun.  Since it's always true, it's not difficult to remember
when parsing a new sentence.

>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.

If you wrote such a sentence, I'd assume that {-'e'} was topicalizing its
noun, its original function.  For example:

puq'e' qIpbogh yaSvaD ghe'naQ vIbom.
I sing an opera to the officer who hit the CHILD (as opposed to hitting
someone else).

>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.

{puqvaD qIpbogh yaS ghe'naQ vIbom}.  {puq} HAS to be the head noun, because
it HAS to be the indirect object of the main clause as well as being the
object of the relative clause.  It is automatically disambiguated because of
this.  No extra rule is necessary.

*********HEY, COOL!********

Is it possible that the "Krankor Rule" actually came about BECAUSE Type 5'd
nouns must always be the head noun?!?!?  Every other Type 5 noun must be the
head noun by its very nature.  {-'e'} was left out all on its own.  Perhaps
over time, Klingons started to use {-'e'} in the same way as all of the
other Type 5 nouns.  That is, they thought, "Well, since any other Type 5
noun in a relative clause means it must be the head noun, let's use {-'e'},
another Type 5, to distinguish the head noun when it's NOT an oblique part
of the main clause.

In other words, they saw

puq qIpbogh yaS vIlegh

and couldn't decide if it meant "I see the officer who hit the child" or "I
see the child whom the officer hit."  Because it wasn't being used as an
oblique part of the sentence, there was no indication as to which one was
right.  So, they decided to add {-'e'}.  This would work in the grammar of
the sentence, yet would still fulfill the "Type 5s mean it's the head noun"
pattern, even though it wasn't technically true.  Now, of course, it's been
used so much that it has become a permanent rule of the language.

In other words, {-'e'} was the LATEST addition to the head noun
disambiguators!!!!

Wow, I LIKE this idea!!!!!!!!

SuStel
Stardate 98089.0

Back to archive top level