tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Tue Jan 27 17:14:30 1998
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
Re: Locatives and {-bogh}
- From: Ken Nisewanger <[email protected]>
- Subject: Re: Locatives and {-bogh}
- Date: Tue, 27 Jan 1998 18:13:26 -0500
- Organization: McDonald Distributors
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: "William H. Martin" [email protected]
and
From: "Qermaq" <[email protected]>
So, why don't I like this idea? Well, let's consider the kind of
mess this idea can lead us to:
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.)
I'm kinda new at this so help me out but, if in most cases the two meanings
tell us the same thing then I like it right????
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?
Okay but wouldn't I say: Sopbogh HoD quSDaq vIlegh. ?
It seems a little clearer?
I'm one of the controversial few who likes {mej} as a transitive
verb, antonym to {'el}, and would write this:
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.
Ummmmmm. I'd use it either way since some verbs can be used both ways.
But if I have to be specific probably intransitively. "ghorgh mamej". MO's
example right?
SuvtaHmeH meQtaHbogh tach lumejQo' qoHpu' neH.
jIQapqa''a'?
There! That's my point..... It does seem to work just fine, doesn't it?
Three clauses: meH comes first; relative clause follows (but the order is
variable); final clause. Now this does bring up a different question that
I have.
In a relative clause the order is variable, and in my case I would
naturally change the order to make more sense to me. Such as: For the
purpose of fighting, only fools refuse to leave a bar that is burning.
When I change the order I noticed that "a bar that is burning" is the
object after all. If I am correct then what would be wrong with 'e'?
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.
In the end I would have to agree with people that understand it much better
than I.
Ken
[email protected]
qeyloS/Kalos