tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Wed Jan 07 07:06:07 1998
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
Re: DIS chu' Quch
According to David Trimboli:
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Terrence Donnelly <[email protected]>
> To: Multiple recipients of list <[email protected]>
> Date: Tuesday, January 06, 1998 6:18 PM
> Subject: Re: DIS chu' Quch
>
>
> >At 01:34 PM 1/6/98 -0800, SuStel wrote:
> >>This demonstrates another form of which I am fond: using an adjectival
> verb
> >>only once, and sticking the entire noun phrase into a relative clause. It
> >>follows all known rules. Given the information in KGT, however, I wonder
> if
> >>it isn't somehow stylistically wrong to Klingons. Okrand does tell us
> that
> >>one "must say" {SuDbogh Dargh 'ej wovbogh} to say this phrase.
I definitely need to look at that section in KGT, because to
me, this looks REALLY ugly, since it essentially gives a
headless relative clause validity, assuming that the head noun
carries across the conjunction. Yuck.
> >
> >Yeah, I wonder about this, too. Okrand does give the impression that
> >you must use the {X-bogh N 'ej Y-bogh} form with two adjectives of
> >quality; on the other hand, I can't think of any reason why this would
> >be so.
> >
> >You can see why you can't just glom two adjectives onto a noun, eg
> >*{DIS chu' Quch}. There's no known mechanism to indicate that they're both
> >modifiers of the noun. (In this case, it _could_ mean "the forehead
> activates
> >the year"!) So I can understand the need to move one of the verbs into
> >a relative clause, but why would this now make the noun unable to take
> >a regular adjective anymore?
>
> My point is that although there is no stated grammar to exclude such a
> construction, I was wondering if perhaps it was "stylistically wrong," not
> grammatically wrong. However, it turns out that it's not. See below . . .
>
> >After all, can't you say things like {qettaHbogh loD Doy'}? If you can't,
> >how could you use a phrase like {qettaHbogh loD 'ej Doy'bogh} as the
> >subject or object of a sentence? *{qettaHbogh loD 'ej Doy'bogh vIlegh} =
> >"I see ? who is tired and (new sentence without a verb) a running man"?
I agree that this is quite ugly.
> This IS apparently a valid way to say this.
Yuck.
> qettaHbogh loD 'ej Doy'bogh vIlegh.
> I see the running, tired man.
>
> Unless for some reason Klingon does not permit one to mix verbs of quality
> and other verbs in constructions like this, but I see no reason to believe
> THAT at all.
>
> Note that saying
>
> qettaHbogh loD Doy'bogh loD je vIlegh
>
> would apparently mean, "I see the running man and the tired man." (Two
> men.)
Agreed.
Of course, you both ignore that you can say:
qettaH loD Doy'. vIlegh.
or
qettaH loD Doy'. loDvam vIlegh.
I'd say that LONG before I'd use that ugly double relative
clause, and I doubt Okrand would have any problem with it.
> >I'm hoping that Okrand clears this up someday and explicitly endorses
> >your idea.
>
> I've located an instance where he uses the construction we are considering:
>
> yIntaHbogh tlhIngan Soj tlhol jablu'DI'
> (Literally, "When one serves unprocessed Klingon food which is living.")
> (SkyBox card S21)
>
> Thus, the construction IS allowed.
It also looks a LOT better and is MUCH easier to understand. I
COMPLETELY endorse this construction as highly preferable to
that other mess.
> SuStel
> Stardate 98018.2
charghwI'