tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Fri Jan 23 15:09:36 1998
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
Re: Locatives and {-bogh} (was Re: KLBC Poetry)
- From: "Qermaq" <[email protected]>
- Subject: Re: Locatives and {-bogh} (was Re: KLBC Poetry)
- Date: Fri, 23 Jan 1998 18:14:04 -0500
ghItlh ter'eS:
>But I'd forgotten the {meQtaHbogh...} example. It looks to me like
>this sentence is trying to use a noun in two different modes at once:
>{meQtaHbogh (qach/qachDaq) Suv}, where the noun is the subject of the
>inner verb but locative in relation to the outer verb. How is this
possible?
First - how it is possible? MO says so. Why it is possible is the
question...
Apparently, adding <-Daq> to a head noun (1) marks it just like <-'e'> does
(2) makes the noun phrase represented by the <-bogh> expression into a
locative. I have long suspected it would be logical to mark head nouns with
"any" Type 5. (Without any proof whatsoever. What else is new?)
So, if I'm right, we can say -
muparbogh ghotpu'vaD yIHmey vInob
I give tribbles to people who hate me.
jortaHbogh yuQvo' DI vIwoH
I pick up debris from the planet which is exploding.
ghewmeymo' vISoppu'bogh 'oy'taH burghwIj.
My stomach hurts due to the bugs I ate.
Qe'Daq vIje'qangbogh qagh wISoplaH.
We can eat qagh in the restaurant which I am willing to buy.
Not that these sentences are particularly inspired, and not that other ways
of saying aren't possible - for the third one, I'd rather say <ghewmey
vISoppu'mo', ...>, as an example. But if canon is to be observed, these
MIGHT be legal...
Or else it's a MO boo-boo. In which case the sentences are wrong. But even
if this is acceptable, it still does not solve the "ship in which I fled"
problem.
Do'Ha'.
Qermaq