tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Sun Feb 01 21:56:00 1998
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
Re: Locatives and {-bogh} (was Re: KLBC Poetry)
- From: Qov <[email protected]>
- Subject: Re: Locatives and {-bogh} (was Re: KLBC Poetry)
- Date: Sun, 01 Feb 1998 21:54:58 -0800
At 02:16 98-02-01 -0800, peHruS wrote:
}In a message dated 98-01-31 22:19:41 EST, Qov writes:
}
}<< I'm quite happy with the existence of a construction that allows a locative
} only on the subject of a relative clause (RC) if the RC is to be the object
} of another clause. There are things in English that only work because the
} preceding clause happens to end with the word you need to chain the next
} clause off of. I notice this in the MU* environment where you forever write
} sentences that start with your characters name, because that's the way the
} code works. >>
}
}----peHruS first post on this matter------
}First, I am just as happy with the locative where it has been all along, at
}the beginning of the sentence. Without regard as to onto which clause it
}places the action of the verb, that is. Then I got to thinking about how
}TKD's addendum MO moved the adverb to attach it to the clause which needed
}modification of its verb. Now, I'm not arguing that the locative moves, too.
In most places where TKD speaks of relative positions of words in a
"sentence." I have been tauht to interpret "clause." I used to always put
all locatives and adverbs at the beginning of the sentence only, and I can
point squarely at the person who taught me this: Seqram.
I haven't been able to find a really nice example of this in canon, but I
would be astonished if the locative could not be placed at the head of the
clause it referred to.
}Obviously, we have not seen MO move the locative to just before another
}clause. We haven't seen this happen, have we?
}
}I am saying: Since the movement of the adverb was introduced later, could we
}encounter the movement of the locative at a future date? If so, I await such
}an event from MO.
I respect the decision to refuse to put a locative anywhere but at the very
beginning of the sentence, but I do not agree with it. Of course, as you
hardly ever write anything in Klingon anyway, the limitation won't affect
you much.
}Finally, MO has pointed out that Klingon sometimes/often/occasionaly needs
}reduplication of a noun: (TKD 61) "When a noun indicates subject and/or
}object, there are some options in Klingon. In its fullest form, a Klingon
}sentence repeats the noun: yaS legh puq 'ej yaS qIp puq" and (TKD 65) "jagh
}luHoHmeH jagh lunejtaH." Of course, further reading reveals that we may use
}pronouns to replace some of the nouns; we may even discard duplicate nouns
}when the meaning is clear.
True, but of questionable relevance to the discussion.
Qov [email protected]
Beginners' Grammarian