tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Mon Feb 02 15:07:27 1998
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
No Subject
>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.
>
>Realize that the {pengvo'} can't be applied to {jor} (the main
>verb) because it follows it. It has to belong to the relative
>clause. Meanwhile, if it belongs to the relative clause, it
>can't be the head noun because it is not subject or object of
>the relative clause. That leaves only one potential head noun,
>which is {Duj}.
>
>> 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'.
>
>> ??? |--------------|
>> *Qe'Daq qagh Sopbogh HoD vIje' 'I buy the restaurant in which
>> |.......................----| the captain eats gagh'
>>
>> (The '???' indicate that the suffix play no actual role in either verb
>> clause)
>
>If it plays no role in either verb clause, then it plays no
>role in the sentence. Remember that verbs are the root of the
>Klingon sentence, and the locative merely tells you where the
>action of the verb happened. In your English translation, you
>applied the locative to the main clause, which is exactly what
>~mark revealed to be so awkward.
The English sentence isn't a translation of the Klingon (which
I marked with an '*' to show I know it's wrong); it's a rendering of
the intent of the impossible Klingon sentence.
>
>> Well, that's not nearly as cumbersome as I thought it would be.
>
>Look again.
vIleghbejtaH 8+)
>
>> My only
>> reservation is basically esthetic, I guess. I _really_ liked the
>> elegance of the old interpretation: the head noun of the relative must
>> be subject or object, thus can only be subject or object in the matrix
>> clause, because the subject and object in Klingon
>> are the only unmarked nouns in a verb clause. In other words, only
>> an unmarked noun (ignoring {-'e'} for the moment) could potentially
>> be simultaneously a subject and an object, and only a noun which could
>> be simultaneously subject and object could fill all the potential slots
>> of the {-bogh} + main verb construction. I admired the clever
>> fit Okrand made between two pieces of the language that he probably
>> put together at different times. I appreciated why {-'e'} doesn't
>> change the part of speech of the noun you add it to (if it did, this
>> interpretation of the {-bogh} construction would become unworkable).
>
>I agree that if this were the only kind of relative clause we
>were allowed, I'd be content.
And so would I. But canon does exist: the {meQtaHbogh...} example and
the {'u' SepDaq Sovlu'be'bogh...} example from the Skybox card. My
initial desire was to ignore these as anomalies, but I'm getting more
uncomfortable with that position.
>
>> But I must admit this new interpretation has possibilities. For one
>> thing, it explains why {-'e'} is classed as a Type 5 verb suffix:
>> when relating the head noun of a {-bogh} phrase to the main verb,
>> all the Type 5 suffixes play the same role of picking out the head noun.
>
>No, they don't.
I'm speculating here, not stating a fact: "IF you can use Type 5 suffixes
on relative clause head nouns, THEN it explains why {-'e'} is classed as
a Type 5 suffix because when relating..."
>
>> (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.
>
>> 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.
Maybe I'm starting to convince myself and blaming it on ~mark!
-- ter'eS