tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Mon Feb 02 10:38:16 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 Sun, 1 Feb 1998 01:08:49 -0800 (PST) David Trimboli 
<[email protected]> wrote:
...
> 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.  

I disagree about how easy it is to understand and several people 
here have remarked about how they were confused by it. As has 
been my style, I tend to analyze it a word at a time as it is 
presented, showing how the word order and affixes interact to 
show us the grammatical function of each word. Klingon's strict 
word order helps us to understand spoken Klingon with relative 
ease.

Qe'Daq = In the restaurant

Qe'Daq Qawbogh = In the restaurant, he who destroys

Qe'Daq Qawbogh nawlogh = In the restaurant, the squadron which 
destroys

Qe'Daq Qaw'bogh nawlogh SoplI' = In the restaurant, he is eating 
the squadron which destroys

Qe'Daq Qaw'bogh nawlogh SoplI' HoD = In the restaurant, the 
captain is eating the squadron which destroys.

There is no grammatical reason to translate this any other way. 
It is only after you take in the meaning and realize that it is 
highly unlikely that this meaning is intended that you go back 
and try to figure out what this was was supposed to mean. The 
{meQtaHbogh qach} example does not give us a reason to 
temporarily peel {-Daq} off of {qach} for the relative clause 
and then paste it back on again for the main clause.

In the {meQtaHbogh} example, there is no other noun available to 
be the head noun except {qach}, so it HAS to be the head noun. 
In your example, this is not the case. Let's keep your word 
order and suffixes and just change the root words:

Qe'Daq He'bogh chab SoplI' HoD.

Same word order, same suffixes, totally different grammar. Now, 
the {Qe'Daq} is not associated with the relative clause at all. 
The root words give us context (intransitive relative clause) 
which make clear the meaning. Meanwhile, there could easily be 
ambiguous choices:

Qe'Daq Suchbogh targh ngeQlI' lupwI'.

Now, which is the correct translation?

1. The jitney is crashing into the targ which visits at the 
restaurant. [The event actually occurred miles from the 
restaurant, but the targ often visited people at the restaurant 
(the people, not the restaurant itself) and was generally 
referred to as "that targ that always visited at the 
restaurant".]

2. At the restaurant, the jitney is crashing into the targ which 
visits. [It was a very social targ. We'll all miss it.]

3. At the restaurant which the targ visits, the jitney is
crashing. [It is not crashing into anything in particular. It 
took glancing blows from several street lamps, some pedestrians, 
a couple parked cars and a parking meter.]

Now, ambiguity is one thing, but this kind of vagueness is 
REALLY unnecessary. If we take on the grammatical conventions 
I'd really prefer, this latter example would still have some 
ambiguity, but much of it would be narrowed:

Qe''e' Suchbogh targhDaq ngeQlI' lupwI'.

1. The jitney is crashing at the restaurant which the targ 
visited.

2. ... Well, there is no other way to interpret this. There is 
only one meaning.

Qe' Suchbogh targhDaq ngeQlI' lupwI'.

1. The jitney is crashing at the targh which visits the 
restaurant. [It doesn't actually hit the targ. It just crashes 
very near the targ.]

Qe'Daq Suchbogh targh ngeQlI' lupwI'.

1. The jitney crashes into the targ who visits at the 
restaurant. [This is exactly as ambiguous in English as it is in 
Klingon. We can't tell whether the crash occured at the 
restaurant, or if it is the visiting that occurs at the 
restaurant.]

Qe''e' Suchbogh targh ngeQlI' lupwI'.

The jitney hit the restaurant which the targ visits.

Qe' Suchbogh targh'e' ngeQlI' lupwI'.

The jitney hit the targ which visits the restaurant.

> 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.

Ah, but the locative phrase has not received its locative suffix 
any more than you could say {qachDaq tIn} is the noun phrase 
"the big building" with a locative suffix added. We know it 
should be {qach tInDaq}. If the phrase is getting a suffix, the 
phrase gets the suffix, not just the noun itself.

> 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.

I believe that it is a bit more than optional. For clarity's 
sake, it is generally necessary, exept when it adds a poetic 
sense to leave the head noun somewhat vague, as is the case for 
{Hovmey ghajbe'bogh ram rur peghmey ghajbe'bogh jaj}.

> Until a Klingon comes and tells us (or Okrand) that {-Daq} does not belong
> in this position, I do not see any revolution coming.

Until a Klingon comes and tells us (or Okrand) that {-Daq} does 
belong in this position, I don't see this kind of construction 
occuring much with either of our interpretations. It is 
DEFINITELY not as simple as you seek to paint it. Okrand has NOT 
condoned your interpretation any more than mine. You are falsely 
painting it that the preferred approach to this problem is 
already presented through the simplest logical extention of 
existing grammatical examples. That is simply not true.
 
> SuStel
> Stardate 98086.8

charghwI'

Back to archive top level