tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Fri Jan 23 10:24:52 1998
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
Re: KLBC Poetry
In article <[email protected]>, "William H.
Martin" <[email protected]> writes
>> Unfortunately, the suggested sentence does NOT follow the known rules.
>>
>> Hegh ghopDaq 'oHbogh ghew'e'
>>
>> The locative is *modifying* the relative clause, not acting as its subject
>> or object, and we have no way of knowing whether this is correct. From what
>> Okrand has said, I'd have to say this DOESN'T work. (The fact that this
>> isn't a verb but a pronoun just makes this sentence even ickier.)
>
>Waaaay icky, especially since it seems to say the same thing as
>{ghopDaq Hegh ghew.} Perhaps there may be other examples,
>however, that really do need a locative for the relative
>clause, so long as the locative noun is not the head noun of
>the clause. I don't see anything fundamentally wrong with that
>idea. My problem is that this is a convoluted way of saying a
>simple thing, twisted by its English origins.
>
>You probably started with, "The bug in the hand died,"
Being as I started this mess, the original sentence was "The bug on the
hand died" (-Daq was for on but it matters little).
> and
>transmogrophied it into, "The bug that is in the hand died."
That is indeed true. I didn't think to translate it to "The bug died on
the hand".
--
tlhIbwI'