tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Fri Jan 30 15:36:27 1998

Back to archive top level

To this year's listing

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

Re: Locatives and {-bogh} (was Re: KLBC Poetry)

According to Terrence Donnelly:
> 
> [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}.

Yes.

> 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

Yes.

> (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.

Let's try that second example again:       |------------------|
                                       jor pengvo' Haw'bogh Duj
                                       |--..................--|

                                       The ship which flees
                                       from the torpedo
                                       explodes. 

Realize that the {pengvo'} can't be applied to {jor} (the main
verb) because it follows it. It has to belong to the relative
clause. Meanwhile, if it belongs to the relative clause, it
can't be the head noun because it is not subject or object of
the relative clause. That leaves only one potential head noun,
which is {Duj}.

> 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.

Well, that's what you just tried to do in your second example.
That's why it doesn't mean what you suggested it meant.

>          ??? |--------------|
>      *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)

If it plays no role in either verb clause, then it plays no
role in the sentence. Remember that verbs are the root of the
Klingon sentence, and the locative merely tells you where the
action of the verb happened. In your English translation, you
applied the locative to the main clause, which is exactly what
~mark revealed to be so awkward.

> Well, that's not nearly as cumbersome as I thought it would be.  

Look again.

> 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).

I agree that if this were the only kind of relative clause we
were allowed, I'd be content.

> 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.

No, they don't.

> (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

Or, as I've been arguing, it might be:

qeylIS'e' lIjlaHbe'bogh vay'vaD maSuv.

The {-vaD} is applied to the entire relative clause and the
{-e'} makes us know that it is the head noun of the relative
clause, making it the noun that counts to the main clause.

Again, as you heard it, it would be clear:

qeylIS'e' = KAHLESS!

qeylIS'e' lIjlaHbe'bogh = Kahless, who cannot be forgotten by
some noun we have not been given yet.

qeylIS'e' lIjlaHbe'bogh vay'vaD = For Kahless, the unforgetable

qeylIS'e' lIjlaHbe'bogh vay'vaD maSuv = We fight for Kahless,
the unforgetable.

> (I doubt that {lIjlaHbe'bogh vay'} part is right; I'm doing this from
> memory)

I think you got it right.

> Anyway, I said I wouldn't accept this without a good argument, and
> dang if ~mark didn't make one!
> 
> -- ter'eS

Well, not exactly. He argued against putting the Type 5 suffix
on the object which was head noun.

charghwI'

Back to archive top level