tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Mon Jan 26 22:01:22 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: Tue, 27 Jan 1998 01:02:27 -0500
ghItlh charghwI':
>quSDaq Sopbogh HoD vIlegh.
>
>By my expectations, it means, "I saw the captain who ate in the
>chair." (Note the statement is equally ambiguous in English as
>Klingon. Did I see "the captain who ate" in the chair, or did I
>see the captain "who ate in the chair"? We could use a comma if
>the first meaning is intended, I suppose, but in most cases, the
>two meanings both tell us you saw the captain in the chair and
>he was eating.)
>
>By your advice, it would have to mean, "I saw it in the chair
>which the captain ate." wejpuH. But there it is, {quSDaq}
>obviously has a Type 5 suffix, so it must be the head noun of
>the relative clause, right?
Not what I said, exactly. Many valid interpretations may exist. Your example
is a great illustration of context dictating what is right and wrong. "I saw
it in the chair which the captain ate" is ludicrous, but possibly what was
intended. If that was the intended meaning, how would you say it? Is there a
better phrasing?
Remember the old headline "Drunk Drivers Paid $10,000 in 1995"? This is
ambiguous, but not wrong. Sure, avoid ambiguity if you can. But the meaning
often cannot be determined from an isolated sentence. I'm willing to
entertain the proposition that all the examples are valid.
>I'm one of the controversial few who likes {mej} as a transitive
>verb, antonym to {'el}, and would write this:
>
>SuvtaHmeH meQtaHbogh tach lumejQo' qoHpu' neH.
If <mej> can be transitive, it's good. But neither you nor I have a Klingon
in your basement.{:o) MO does. He used <-Daq> in a <-bogh> construction.
Till he says "Oops" it's canon. How we use it is an academic point of
discussion, and I enjoy our exploration of it. But, of course, it's all
speculation anyway.
Qermaq