tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Thu Feb 05 07:49:36 1998
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
Re: Locatives and {-bogh} (was Re: KLBC Poetry)
- From: "William H. Martin" <[email protected]>
- Subject: Re: Locatives and {-bogh} (was Re: KLBC Poetry)
- Date: Thu, 5 Feb 1998 10:49:26 -0500 (EST)
- In-Reply-To: <[email protected]> from "Mark E. Shoulson" at Feb 4, 98 01:34:06 pm
According to Mark E. Shoulson:
>
> >Date: Fri, 30 Jan 1998 00:07:53 -0800 (PST)
> >From: "David Trimboli" <[email protected]>
> >
> >-----Original Message-----
> >From: Alan Anderson <[email protected]>
> >To: Multiple recipients of list <[email protected]>
> >Date: Thursday, January 29, 1998 2:27 AM
> >Subject: Re: Locatives and {-bogh} (was Re: KLBC Poetry)
> >
> >
> >>ja'pu' Qermaq:
> >>>Qe'Daq vIje'qangbogh qagh wISoplaH.
> >>>We can eat qagh in the restaurant which I am willing to buy.
> >>
> >>Umm...I don't think so at all. There's no way I can get myself to use
> >>{Qe'Daq} in this sentence as anything other than a locative. It's a bit
> >>ambiguous as to whether it's the locative of {je'} or {Sop}, but it is
> >>*not* the object of either verb. And with no obvious object to act as
> >>head noun, {vIje'qangbogh} falls flat and fails to mean much of anything
> >>to me.
Unfortunately, there is a canon example of exactly this kind of
grammatical construction. It's not the {meQtaHbogh qach}
example. It is the "At the edge of unexplored space" Skybox
example. The only available head noun for the relative clause
is the locative which needs to be stripped of its {-Daq} in
order to act as head noun, then have the {-Daq} put back on in
order to exhibit its function in the main clause.
The example stinks, but it perfectly fits this one. There is no
cannon unambiguously supporting your idea of {-Daq} being
postposition for the entire clause. There is one example that
shows this to not be the case. You lose. I lose. So does the
language.
> It is too glib to say "it follows the pattern, this is what Okrand has
> given us." What he has given us is a sentence, not a pattern or schema.
> The pattern is our own making, and there's more than one choice for it.
Well, the {meQtaHbogh qach...} example fits your description of
being ambiguous. The "At the edge of the unexplored universe"
example does not.
> ~mark
charghwI'