tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Sun Jan 25 14:08:58 1998

Back to archive top level

To this year's listing

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]

Re: Locatives and {-bogh} (was Re: KLBC Poetry)

On Fri, 23 Jan 1998 15:51:08 -0800 (PST) Qermaq 
<[email protected]> 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?)

This is not the first time this idea was presented. I'll assure 
you that sentences you build with this kind of technique will 
often be quite obtuse. Building obtuse sentence is not one of my 
goals in using this language. If it is yours, go ahead. I'll 
likely read as far as I can comfortably understand and delete 
the rest. Time is so short.
 
> 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.

Sounds hazardous.
 
> ghewmeymo' vISoppu'bogh 'oy'taH burghwIj.
> My stomach hurts due to the bugs I ate.

This is thick enough that it would be easier to read than hear 
and understand. In particular, it nearly falls into the real 
problem with this kind of construction, where {ghewmeymo'} might 
be applying to the relative clause or to the main clause. In 
this case, it is fairly simple, but keep it up and you'll make 
up an example that reeks.
 
> Qe'Daq vIje'qangbogh qagh wISoplaH.
> We can eat qagh in the restaurant which I am willing to buy.

This is getting uglier, though after a double-take, it is not 
ambiguous.
 
> 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...

jISaHbe. Qapchu'be'. vIpoQbe'.
 
> 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

charghwI'

Back to archive top level