tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Tue Feb 03 06:06:08 1998
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
Re: Locatives and {-bogh} (was Re: KLBC Poetry)
- From: [email protected] (Alan Anderson)
- Subject: Re: Locatives and {-bogh} (was Re: KLBC Poetry)
- Date: Tue, 3 Feb 98 08:19:30 EST
[On the subject of a type 5 suffix marking the object of a relative
clause as the head noun...]
ja'pu' charghwI':
>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.
ja' SuStel:
>But he has. {meQtaHbogh qachDaq Suv qoHpu' neH} shows the head noun as the
>subject of the relative clause and as the locative of the main sentence, and
>{'u' SepmeyDaq Sovbe'lu'bogh lenglu'meH He} shows the head noun as the
>object of the relative clause and as the locative of the main sentence (or
>rather, of the purpose clause).
Oh my. This is the first time I've seen clearly the way SuStel is
interpreting the DS9#99 text, and now I understand why he's been so
adamant in his acceptance of type 5's on objects. That *is* the way
the Skybox card does it...and this discussion echoes one from a couple
of years ago that I didn't understand at the time.
>Date: Thu, 14 Dec 1995 21:02:36 -0800 (PST)
>From: "R.B Franklin" <[email protected]>
>Actually, there is canon to support {-Daq} on the head noun of a relative
>clause: 'u' SepmeyDaq Sovbe'lu'bogh lenglu'meH He ghoSlu'bogh retlhDaq
>'oHtaH. (DS9 trading card #99)
It was mentioned again briefly the next year.
>Date: Sun, 18 Aug 1996 03:12:34 +0000
>From: Nick Nicholas <[email protected]>
>* So, Okrand may have followed natural languages, in banning indirect objects
>with respect to the relative clause verb, or (as Mark says) banned them with
>respect to the main verb --- which would be quite wacky. That he did the
>former is proven by the following Skybox Card text (HolQeD 3.2:9):
>
>loS... qIb HeHDaq, 'u' SepmeyDaq Sovbe'lu'bogh lenglu'meH He ghoSlu'bogh
>retlhDaq 'oHtaH.
>
>Here, 'u' Sepmey is the direct object of the relative clause verb
>Sovbe'lu'bogh, but an indirect object of the main verb "'oHtaH".
[I think Nick's use of the term "indirect object" was a bit off the
mark, but the topic is relevant.]
So either SuStel is right, and the Skybox card is a valid example of
this grammar, or Okrand goofed and the card is an merely an example of
error in canon along the lines of {cha'maH wa' vatlh rep} for noon or
{gh} mispronounced as {j}. (We've also got the unexplained apparent
adverbial use of {wa'DIch} on one of the Skybox cards to worry about.)
We know Okrand makes mistakes; when we have but a single example of a
novel grammatical structure, it's hard to know how correct it is.
The {meQtaHbogh qachDaq} example from KGT is a little stronger than
the {'u' SepmeyDaq Suvbe'lu'bogh} example from DS9#99, in my opinion.
KGT tends to make an effort to note unusual or anomalous grammar, and
it presents the proverb without flinching. The placement of a type 5
noun suffix at the end of a full noun phrase was already established
in TKD, so putting it on the subject of a relative clause is not much
of a stretch. The flow of a sentence with this structure is smooth
and the meaning is easily understood. But putting a type 5 suffix on
the *object* of the relative clause demands a little more explanation
from the person who put it there in the first place before I'll accept
it as the "right" way to do things.
I will also point out that neither of the two examples here has both
an explicit subject and an explicit object, so there's no need to use
*any* tool for disambiguating the correct meaning. So even if the
Skybox card is a valid example for us to emulate, it doesn't say that
{tachDaq Qaw'bogh QaS} can mean "in the bar that the troops destroyed."
Maybe the locative suffix can only go on the object of a relative
clause if there isn't an explicitly stated subject, and it *doesn't*
serve the purpose of marking the head noun the way {-'e'} does.
-- ghunchu'wI'