At 09:02 AM 1/29/98 -0800, ~mark wrote:
>>From: "Andeen, Eric" <[email protected]>
>>
>>Qermaq has argued that in a {-bogh} clause, any noun with a type 5
>>suffix is the head noun, and charghwI' has argued (passionately: reH
>>nong charghwI') that the only type 5 suffix that makes any sense is
>>-'e'. I mostly agree with charghwI' on this one.
>
>I don't think there's much room to argue with charghwI' on this point.
>Okrand himself said that he couldn't see the head-noun of a relative clause
>being anything other than the subject or the object, and thus if the head
>is flagged at all, it would be with -'e'.
>
>The {meQtaHbogh qachDaq Suv qoHpu' neH} example is not a counterexample to
>this: the -bogh clause is {meQtaHbogh qach}, and the head noun is the
>*subject* of that clause. The reason it has the -Daq on it is because it
>functions as a locative in the *matrix* clause (the surrounding sentence).
>This is admittedly weird, to have this noun wearing two hats (a subject in
>one sentence and a locative in another--though we don't bat an eye at the
>subject of a relative clause being the object of a matrix clause. Probably
>because subjects and objects are both unmarked in Klingon, while everything
>else is marked with suffixes), but does not comprise any contradiction to
>what we know. It says that the head-noun of a -bogh clause--its subject or
>object only, mind you--can fill other roles in the matrix, that's all. In
>fact, it further strengthens the case that strictly speaking, an outside
>linguist describing the Klingon language (NOT respecting the traditional
>classical analysis) would probably call most of the type-5 noun suffixes
>(with the possible exception of -'e') postpositions and not suffixes (they
>migrate to ends of noun-clauses modified by verbs, etc). (Please, don't
>get me wrong. I'm not arguing with Okrand. We call -Ha' a rover when it
>doesn't rove and all. Just saying that from a linguistic perspective, -Daq
>is really more properly a postposition, not a suffix).
>
[analysis snipped...]
My resistance is weakening. Assuming ~mark's very lucid argument is true,
let me try to codify the supposed rules of our new understanding of {-bogh}
constructions:
1. The head noun (noun being modified) of a {-bogh} clause must
be the subject or object of the verb with {-bogh}.
2. Within the matrix (main verb) clause, the head noun of the {-bogh}
clause can also be the subject or object of the main verb. If
the {-bogh} clause has both a subject and an object, the suffix {-'e'}
can be used to clearly mark which noun of the {-bogh} clause is the head
noun.
|----------------| |----------------|
beq HoHbogh HoD'e' vIlegh beq'e' HoHbogh HoD vIlegh
|-----------| |.................------|
I see the captain who kills I see the crewman whom the
the crewman. captain kills
(The dots mean that the intervening words are not part of the matrix
clause)
3. The head noun of the {-bogh} clause can also take those roles in
the matrix clause which are marked by the other Type 5 verb suffixes.
|-------------| |--------------|
meQtaHbogh qachvo' vIHaw' jor pengvo' Haw'bogh Duj
|--------| |------|
I flee the burning building The torpedo from which the ship is
fleeing explodes.
4. You can't say things like "the ship in which I fled" because
the locative (or other Type 5-suffixed noun) is not the subject or
object of the {-bogh} verb, and so can't be the head noun of the clause.
??? |--------------|
*Qe'Daq qagh Sopbogh HoD vIje' 'I buy the restaurant in which
|.......................----| the captain eats gagh'
(The '???' indicate that the suffix play no actual role in either verb
clause)
Well, that's not nearly as cumbersome as I thought it would be. My only
reservation is basically esthetic, I guess. I _really_ liked the
elegance of the old interpretation: the head noun of the relative must
be subject or object, thus can only be subject or object in the matrix
clause, because the subject and object in Klingon
are the only unmarked nouns in a verb clause. In other words, only
an unmarked noun (ignoring {-'e'} for the moment) could potentially
be simultaneously a subject and an object, and only a noun which could
be simultaneously subject and object could fill all the potential slots
of the {-bogh} + main verb construction. I admired the clever
fit Okrand made between two pieces of the language that he probably
put together at different times. I appreciated why {-'e'} doesn't
change the part of speech of the noun you add it to (if it did, this
interpretation of the {-bogh} construction would become unworkable).
But I must admit this new interpretation has possibilities. For one
thing, it explains why {-'e'} is classed as a Type 5 verb suffix:
when relating the head noun of a {-bogh} phrase to the main verb,
all the Type 5 suffixes play the same role of picking out the head noun.
(I doubt if Okrand had this in mind when he developed it; it's
amazing how these things dovetail long after their creation!) It's way
more flexible than the previous understanding. Since the {-bogh}
construction is often used adjectivally, this would allow you to
use nouns so modified in oblique roles:
qeylISvaD lIjlaHbe'bogh vay' maSuv
We fight for Kahless the Unforgettable
(I doubt that {lIjlaHbe'bogh vay'} part is right; I'm doing this from
memory)
Anyway, I said I wouldn't accept this without a good argument, and
dang if ~mark didn't make one!
-- ter'eS