tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Thu Jan 08 01:40:25 1998
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
Re: DIS chu' Quch
- From: "David Trimboli" <[email protected]>
- Subject: Re: DIS chu' Quch
- Date: Wed, 7 Jan 1998 23:02:03 -0500
-----Original Message-----
From: William H. Martin <[email protected]>
To: Multiple recipients of list <[email protected]>
Date: Wednesday, January 07, 1998 10:26 AM
Subject: Re: DIS chu' Quch
>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.
Of course you can say these, but that's not the point.
As far as I can tell, Okrand has used "double relative clauses" twice, and
relative clause with adjectivally modified noun once. Not only do I not see
any reason that the double relative clause construction should not be used,
I also do not see any evidence that Klingons prefer other methods over it.
Actually, I rather like this construction. It follows the rules in a way
which none of us anticipated. It's different than the way English does
things. It has a unique flavor to it.
>It also looks a LOT better and is MUCH easier to understand. I
>COMPLETELY endorse this construction as highly preferable to
>that other mess.
It's only harder to understand the double relative clauses if your
familiarity with Klingon hasn't adjusted to it yet. I'll bet Klingons find
it second nature. Perhaps it's more challenging to us non-native Klingon
speakers, but that's our problem, and the construction shouldn't be attacked
on that basis.
SuStel
Stardate 98021.0