tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Thu Jan 29 10:19:55 1998
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
Re: Locatives and {-bogh} (was Re: KLBC Poetry)
- From: Marc Ruehlaender <[email protected]>
- Subject: Re: Locatives and {-bogh} (was Re: KLBC Poetry)
- Date: Thu, 29 Jan 1998 12:19:47 CST
- In-Reply-To: Your message of Thu, 29 Jan 1998 09:04:13 -0800
~mark wrote:
<<a lot of stuff snipped>>
> Actually, if I wanted to say "the captain was eating in the restaurant
> which the squadron destroyed," I think at this point what I'd like to see
> is this:
>
> /-------------------\
> ?qach Qaw'bogh nawloghDaq SoplI' HoD
> \------------/
>
> Admittedly ambiguous between that meaning and "The captain was eating in
> the squadron which destroyed the building," but that's normal head-noun
> ambiguity of relative clauses, which we know exists in Klingon (cf. {Hov
> ghajbe'bogh ram rur pegh ghajbe'bogh jaj}).
>
..and which could be resolved (partly) by using {-'e'} to give
?qach'e' Qaw'bogh nawloghDaq SoplI' HoD
> This is definitely speculative and controversial, and I wouldn't use it
> without Okrand's say-so, but frankly it makes sense to me, despite its
> seeming illogic. It relies rather heavily on the view of -Daq as a
> postposition, a view which is unproven, though supported by the grammar we
> know so far.
>
more speculation: if the above was true, there might be a tendency
to regard the subject that carries a type 5 suffix/postposition as
the head noun if the object is unmarked (bc. you cannot have {-'e'}
on the subject)
> I'm going to regret mailing this, since I think it would make a great
> HolQeD article. Whoever roundtables this, can we get this letter in?
>
well, I am at least going to save this mail. I like the idea...
Marc Ruehlaender
aka HomDoq
[email protected]