tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Sun Jan 25 10:09:41 1998
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
Re: Locatives and {-bogh} (was Re: KLBC Poetry)
- From: Terrence Donnelly <[email protected]>
- Subject: Re: Locatives and {-bogh} (was Re: KLBC Poetry)
- Date: Sun, 25 Jan 1998 12:11:04 -0600
At 03:50 PM 1/23/98 -0800, Qermaq wrote:
>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?)
>
jIQochqu'. Everywhere else in Klingon grammar the distinction between
unmarked (subject or object) nouns and marked nouns is rigidly observed.
TKD Section 6.2.3 on the {-bogh} construction discusses only {-bogh}
with head nouns that are subjects or objects of the {-bogh} verb and
_strongly_ implies that these are the only possible type of head nouns.
Okrand himself remarked that he couldn't get the {-bogh} construction to
work with non-subject or object head nouns. As I noted in my analysis of
the {-bogh} construction, {meQtaHbogh qachDaq} is trying to use a noun in
two mutually-exclusive parts of speech at the same time, and this violates
all previous Klingon rules.
>Or else it's a MO boo-boo.
This is my guess. I'd like to see this example go the way of the
{jIHtaHbogh naDev vISovbe'} sentence from TKD, as something we agree
to politely ignore. I don't like the construction, and without other canon
or a mighty good argument, I don't intend to use it
-- ter'eS