tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Tue Feb 03 00:53:33 1998
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
No Subject
<< Qermaq has argued that in a {-bogh} clause, any noun with a type 5
suffix is the head noun, and charghwI' has argued (passionately: reH
nong charghwI') that the only type 5 suffix that makes any sense is
-'e'. I mostly agree with charghwI' on this one.
The problem with all the other type 5 suffices is that they cannot
normally be attached to the subject or object of a sentence, and a
{-bogh} is really just a mini-sentence. The example used <quSDaq Sopbogh
HoD vIlegh> has two candidates for a head noun in the {-bogh} clause:
<quS> and <HoD>. <quS> has the only type 5 suffix in the clause, but
makes a really lousy head noun: it's not the object and it's not the
subject; it's just one of those extraneous nouns with a type 5 suffix.
We've heard from Okrand himself that the head noun of a {-bogh} clause
must either be the subject or the object. There's a lot of debate over
exactly what the deal is with that comment, and I won't get into it, but
at the very least, <quS> cannot be the head noun of this clause. This
makes <HoD> the obvious and only choice.
Generalizing a bit, -'e' is the ONLY type 5 suffix that can EVER work to
mark the head noun if the noun comes before the verb: if the noun has a
type 5 suffix other than -'e', it cannot be the object. Even if the
rules on type 5 suffices are relaxed a bit in {-bogh} clauses, there is
still no reasonable way to make it the object: how could you tell
whether it is the object or just an extraneous noun. What would it mean
if it were the object anyway? <qachDaq Qaw'bogh nawlogh SoplI' HoD>
could mean, if we accept -Daq on an object "The captain was eating in
the building which the squadron destroyed", turning the whole {-bogh}
clause into a locative. However, I firmly believe that the locative
<qachDaq> would glom on to the nearest verb and act (as it should) like
a locative, and the correct meaning of this sentence would wind up as
"The captain is eating the squadron which destroyed (no object) in the
building". Yummy. Trying to put a type 5 suffix other than -'e' on the
object of a {-bogh} clause doesn't work because there's no way to tell
that the noun isn't just a free floating type 5 suffix noun like it
appears to be.
>>
----peHruS continues-----
jIQochbe' je jIH
head noun chenmoHmeH vay' mojaq {-'e'} neH lo'laH
topic 'oS mojaqvam neH
topicalization lu'oSbe' Sar vaghDIch mojaqmey pIm
pItlh Qapla' peHruS