tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Wed Feb 04 15:38:51 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)

At 02:03 PM 2/4/98 -0800, ~mark wrote:
>>From: Terrence Donnelly <[email protected]>
>>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.
>

I know, I know.  charghwI' has already pointed out to me that I did exactly
the opposite of what I was attempting to say.  HIvqa' veqlargh jay'!

As an attempt at a Type-5 suffix on the _object_ of the relative clause
(Which is what I was trying to do above and failed at), I proposed

{pengvo' baHta'bogh toQDuj Haw' veSDuj}  'the warship flees from the
                                          torpedo launched by the BoP'


>
>>     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).
>

charghwI's guiding principle (he tells us) for considering innovations
is how it plays out as it is heard one word at a time. (I think he
gives too little attention to the possibility that the spoken and written
registers are not necessarily identical, also tends to downplay the role
that body language, intonation and speech patterns could play in
making sentence structure clear, but that's another topic.)

My guiding principle, I guess, is how universally applicable a rule is.
I like rules that can be applied in most cases without exceptions.  This
is why I don't like your proposed solution.  If this is the proper way
to put a Type-5 suffix on a relative clause, by considering the entire
clause as if it were a single noun, then this is the only place in
Klingon grammar where this is allowed, where a collection of separate
words functions as a unit.  It also makes (keeps?) {-'e'} unique
among Type-5 suffixes, and requires that you make an exception and use it
whenever the head noun is _not_ the noun to which the other Type-5 suffix
applies.

Also, to me, understanding that the {-vaD} in the above example refers back
to {qeylIs} and not the {vay'} is a big exception to our usual
interpretation of nouns with Type-5s on them.

I'd be more likely to accept the form where the suffix is appended to
the {-bogh} verb and the head noun, subject or object, marked with
{-'e'}, except that this is totally unsupported by canon.

But I see the idea that {-'e'} or any other Type-5 suffix can be appended
to the head noun (subject or object) of the relative clause as being
much more regular.  It simply takes what we already know about the
{-'e'} suffix and its role in relative clauses, and extends it to the other
Type-5 suffixes (and its role in the matrix clause; after all, {-'e'} on a
head noun has no grammatical effect on the head noun within the relative 
clause.  It's purpose is to mark emphasis for the matrix clause).  All
Type-5 suffixes then behave the same way, with both types of head nouns, and no 
special rules or interpretations need to be done. 

Besides, we do have a canon example for each case of head noun as subject 
and as object.  Without that object example, I'd say you might be right
about the Type-5 suffix modifying the entire relative clause, but MO's
{'u' SepmeyDaq Sovlu'be'bogh...} example clinches it for me.  Yes, it
introduces some ambiguity into the language, but this is not necessarily
a Bad Thing to me; most languages have some ambiguous structures.

I did like it back in the Good Old Days when we thought that head nouns
could only be subjects or objects in the matrix phrase, too.  I liked
the simplicity and regularity of it.  But I've been made aware of
these counter-examples, also of the fact that opinion is not universal
on ignoring them as anomalies.  Like the rest of you, I'm trying to 
interpret them in a way that satisfies my instincts and leaves us with 
workable rules for understanding them.

-- ter'eS

Back to archive top level