tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Tue Feb 03 11:56:29 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)

-----Original Message-----
From: William H. Martin <[email protected]>
To: Multiple recipients of list <[email protected]>
Date: Monday, February 02, 1998 5:56 PM
Subject: Re: Locatives and {-bogh} (was Re: KLBC Poetry)


>It is not forbidden for it to be locative in the relative
>clause. It is only forbidden for it to both be locative in the
>relative clause AND be head noun of the relative clause.

Quite right.  I have been pressured, probably unjustly so, by others not to
do this sort of thing, and was incorrectly applying it to the idea I had.

However, this withdrawl is only of the etymology of {-'e'} disambiguator
theory, which is parenthetical to the rest of this discussion.  The rest
still stands.

>> 'u' SepmeyDaq luSovbe'lu'bogh maleng.
>> We travel in unknown regions of the universe.
>
>I also see THIS as a problem. Yuck.

You keep saying that, but you never do anything about it.  What's the story
with this?  Why does it exist?  The full sentence is

qIb HeHDaq, 'u' SepmeyDaq Sovbe'lu'bogh lenglu'meH He ghoSlu'bogh
retlhDaq 'oHtaH.
[It is] on the edge of the galaxy, beside a passage to unknown
regions of the universe,

It exists.  It is aware of its own consciousness.  Save the program until
you can figure it out.  What's the beef here?

>> jatlh tlhIngan jIH
>> He said, "I am a Klingon."
>> The Klingon said, "Me."
>>
>> Which is it?
>
>That argument could be created against ANY ambiguity. You are
>proving nothing. Yes, ambiguity exists in the langauge. That
>doesn't mean we should value ambiguity so highly that we clutch
>every opportunity we can to preserve it.

It is you who are using clarity as an argument, not I.  It is not the
ambiguity that I am interested in.  I simply do not think it is proof
against it, as you seem to.  Ambiguity MAY exist.  It is not necessary and
not impossible.  It should not be the basis of this argument.

>Okrand and the rest of us have accepted the
>idea that {-'e'} in a relative clause indicates the head noun
>of the clause.

Now you're just slinging mud.  That is hardly helpful or dignified.  Of
COURSE I know that {-'e'} may indicate the head clause.  IT IS OPTIONAL.  I
have shown this in another post.

SuStel
Stardate 98092.6

Back to archive top level