tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Fri Jan 30 08:52:32 1998
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
Re: Locatives and {-bogh} (was Re: KLBC Poetry)
According to David Trimboli:
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Alan Anderson <[email protected]>
> To: Multiple recipients of list <[email protected]>
> Date: Thursday, January 29, 1998 2:27 AM
> Subject: Re: Locatives and {-bogh} (was Re: KLBC Poetry)
>
>
> >ja'pu' Qermaq:
> >>Qe'Daq vIje'qangbogh qagh wISoplaH.
> >>We can eat qagh in the restaurant which I am willing to buy.
> >
> >Umm...I don't think so at all. There's no way I can get myself to use
> >{Qe'Daq} in this sentence as anything other than a locative. It's a bit
> >ambiguous as to whether it's the locative of {je'} or {Sop}, but it is
> >*not* the object of either verb. And with no obvious object to act as
> >head noun, {vIje'qangbogh} falls flat and fails to mean much of anything
> >to me.
>
> meQtaHbogh qachDaq Suv qoH neH.
>
> {qach} is the head noun of the relative clause, and the entire noun phrase
> is a locative.
>
> Qe'Daq vIje'qangbogh qagh wISoplaH.
>
> {Qe'} is the head noun of the relative clause, and the entire noun phrase is
> a locative.
The question is whether or not we would extend the "move the
Type 5 suffix to the end of the trailing adjectival verb" rule
to include this sort of relative clause, so it would be:
?Qe' vIje'qangboghDaq qagh wISoplaH.
I personally vote that this IS the way we would handle it, if
we handle it at all. I would find it a lot easier to understand
without the weird ambiguity of the original.
> Whether or not {meQtaHbogh qachDaq Suv qoH neH} is a fluke, Qermaq's
> sentence DOES fit the same pattern, only with the head noun as object
> instead of subject.
But it gets messy if there is an explicit noun as subject of
the relative clause.
> SuStel
> Stardate 98080.2
charghwI'