tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Wed Feb 04 13:35:18 1998
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
Re: Locatives and {-bogh} (was Re: KLBC Poetry)
- From: "Mark E. Shoulson" <[email protected]>
- Subject: Re: Locatives and {-bogh} (was Re: KLBC Poetry)
- Date: Wed, 4 Feb 1998 16:35:02 -0500 (EST)
- In-reply-to: <[email protected]> (messagefrom Terrence Donnelly on Fri, 30 Jan 1998 11:28:39 -0800 (PST))
>Date: Fri, 30 Jan 1998 11:28:39 -0800 (PST)
>From: Terrence Donnelly <[email protected]>
>
>My resistance is weakening. Assuming ~mark's very lucid argument is true,
>let me try to codify the supposed rules of our new understanding of {-bogh}
>constructions:
Thank you!
>1. The head noun (noun being modified) of a {-bogh} clause must
>be the subject or object of the verb with {-bogh}.
With you.
>2. Within the matrix (main verb) clause, the head noun of the {-bogh}
>clause can also be the subject or object of the main verb. If
>the {-bogh} clause has both a subject and an object, the suffix {-'e'}
>can be used to clearly mark which noun of the {-bogh} clause is the head
>noun.
Right. This, so far, is uncontroversial only wth respect to subjects and
objects in both the relative and main clauses, as you say.
> |----------------| |----------------|
> beq HoHbogh HoD'e' vIlegh beq'e' HoHbogh HoD vIlegh
> |-----------| |.................------|
> I see the captain who kills I see the crewman whom the
> the crewman. captain kills
>
>(The dots mean that the intervening words are not part of the matrix
>clause)
Yes, mostly. The dotted words are part of a nested relative clause.
>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.
Ack. The first, OK (assuming Okrand's example can be built upon, not
necessarily assuming my analysis of it is right). The second, no. That is
*exactly* "ship in which I fled." You have the -vo' attached to
the... main clause?? I can't follow this at all. Wait, I think I see.
You're making a direct object in the main clause an oblique object of the
relative clause... and the head-noun! But you just said above (and I
agree) that oblique objects can't be head-nouns.
>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.
You just did say "the ship in which I fled" (or "the torpedo from which
the ship fled", which is the same grammar). I agree that you can't. But
you just did.
> qeylISvaD lIjlaHbe'bogh vay' maSuv
> We fight for Kahless the Unforgettable
If my analysis is right, this would have to be "?qeylIS lIjlaHbe'bogh
vay'vaD maSuv." Assuming this can be done at all, as charghwI' quite
rightly points out (as did I).
~mark