tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Mon Feb 02 10:37:47 1998
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
Re: Locatives and {-bogh} (was Re: KLBC Poetry)
- From: "William H. Martin" <[email protected]>
- Subject: Re: Locatives and {-bogh} (was Re: KLBC Poetry)
- Date: Mon, 2 Feb 1998 13:37:07 -0500 (Eastern Standard Time)
- Priority: NORMAL
On Sat, 31 Jan 1998 17:06:54 -0800 (PST) David Trimboli
<[email protected]> wrote:
...
> While I too believe there are better ways to say this, it is more
> troublesome when *reading* it than *hearing* it.
>
> If I were *speaking* this sentence, I'd put a pause in, thus:
>
> qachDaq Qaw'bogh nawlogh, SoplI' HoD.
>
> This pulls the sentence apart into pieces which can be managed: the locative
> is contained in one portion, the non-oblique (what's the word for this?!?)
> words in the other. The pause will tell the listener that the locative
> phrase is over, and here comes the next part.
Actually, if I hear the pause, I won't hear a locative phrase.
I'll hear a relative clause with a locative in it. The pause
would even further detach the locative noun from the main clause.
I'd hear, "The captain is eating -- the squadron who destroyed
at the building." Having to wait four words before seeing any
connection between the locative and the main clause is more than
enough already, but having the pause even further confuses
things.
> Though I understand the support for something like
>
> (qach Qaw'bogh nawlogh)Daq SoplI' HoD,
>
> I think it is truly nasty, and hope it is not the case!
You might have said the same thing about {qach tInDaq SoplI'
HoD} before Okrand decided to do it that way. Your reasoning
would likely be similar to that you voice here.
> SuStel
> Stardate 98081.7
charghwI'