tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Wed Jan 28 11:32:09 1998

Back to archive top level

To this year's listing

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

Re: Locatives and {-bogh}

According to Ken Nisewanger:
> 
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
> 
>> 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????

Most of the time, if I saw "the captain who ate" in the chair,
that is the same thing as if I saw the captain "who ate in the
chair". In both cases, that usually means the captain was
eating while sitting in the chair and that is where I saw him.

Meanwhile, other cases could exist. Maybe you and I have been
talking about two captains. One of them is fasting and refuses
to eat. The other one just ate the blood pie you and I had been
waiting all afternoon for. I walk into the next room (out of
your view) and see the not-fasting captain, not eating
anything, but he has blood pie smeared all over his face.

I walk back into the room and tell you, "I just saw the captain
who ate it (our pie) in a chair." He likely didn't actually eat
it in the chair. I just saw him in the chair and I'm
identifying him, differentiating between him and the other
captain who obviously did NOT eat our blood pie.

The second case:

Now, suppose instead that at an earlier time, I saw the captain
in the process of eating our blood pie while sitting in a
chair. I run off and find you so we can corner him and have our
revenge. We get to the chair and he is gone. You go through one
door looking for him and I choose another.

I find him, standing there, glaring at me with blood pie
smeared all over his face. I duck around the corner and get
you. I point through the doorway and tell you, "I saw the
captain who ate it in the chair." I didn't actually see him in
the chair this time, but I saw the captain "who ate it in the
chair".

So, there are different possible meanings here for both the
Klingon and the English. Meanwhile, they all involve the
captain, eating and a chair and none of them suggest that he
ate the chair. That would be a rather radical change in the
fundamental meaning of this sentence.

>> 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?
> 
> Okay but wouldn't I say:  Sopbogh HoD quSDaq vIlegh.  ?
> It seems a little clearer?
 
Nope. You have placed a locative between a verb and its object.
That is against the rules. Klingon word order is not very
flexible. It needs to be rigid. Klingon lacks all the helping
words English has to identify the function of each word in a
sentence. Most of that information in Klingon is established by
the word order. The locative has to preceed the object of the
verb and the entire relative clause has to accompany its head
noun, which is the object of {legh}. 
 
>> I'm one of the controversial few who likes {mej} as a transitive
>> verb, antonym to {'el},...
> 
> 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?
 
I expect it to work either way, like {Sop}.

>> 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.  

The word order is NOT variable. What is really happening here
is that the {-meH} clause is modifying the main verb, so it has
to preceed both the verb and its object. The relative clause is
acting as the direct object of the verb, so it has to go
between the {-meH} clause and the verb, and the verb is the
verb, so it has to follow its object. There is no flexibility
in this word order.

> 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. 

You did a good job of catching my error. I meant to use {qach}
instead of {tach}. For the discussion, we will continue using
{tach}. It is good to see you paying attention, however.

>  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'?

{tach} is the object of {lumejQo'} which is the main verb. It
is also the subject of {meQtaHbogh}, which is the relative
clause. The only reason one uses {-'e'} in a relative clause is
if it contains explicit nouns for both subject and object of
that relative clause, like this:

Before {-'e'}:

loD qIpbogh puq vIlegh.

Maybe I saw the child who hit the man, or maybe I saw the man
who was hit by the child. I can't tell from this sentence.

After {-'e'}:

loD'e' qIpbogh puq vIlegh.

I saw the man who was hit by the child.

loD qIpbogh puq'e' vIlegh.

I saw the child who hit the man.

If the sentence had been:

QIpbogh puq vIlegh.

Then "I saw the child who was stupid." There is no need for
{-'e'}. There is only one noun present to be the head noun.
This is quite similar to {meQtaHbogh qach}. There is no need
for {-'e'}. Trying to take {meQtaHbogh qachDaq} and claim that
it is evidence that {-Daq} is acting just like {-'e'} is
spectacularly weak because there is no reason whatsoever to use
{-'e'} on {qach}.

> Ken
> [email protected]
> qeyloS/Kalos

charghwI'

Back to archive top level