tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Sat Jan 31 17:37:01 1998
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
RE: Locatives and {-bogh} (was Re: KLBC Poetry)
- From: Qov <[email protected]>
- Subject: RE: Locatives and {-bogh} (was Re: KLBC Poetry)
- Date: Sat, 31 Jan 1998 17:35:50 -0800
At 18:40 98-01-27 -0800, pagh wrote:
I haven't been following this thread closely, but I saw my name ... :)
}The canon example in question is <meQtaHbogh qachDaq SuvtaH qoHpu' neH>,
}and it illustrates the one possibility for this sort of thing: putting
}the type 5 suffix on the *subject*. This is certainly weird, but unless
}it is later reversed, it is correct by definition, and I can make it
}work in my own brain. The noun with the type 5 suffix here follows the
}verb, and if it's part of the clause, it can ONLY be the subject. In
}this example, there's not much danger of seeing the <qachDaq> as a
}locative in the main clause because we would wind up with a headless
}relative clause, which is even weirder. I could also see <targh pupbogh
}nuchDaq nISwI' Qeq Qov> "Qov aimed a disruptor at the coward who kicked
}the targ." Even with the object <targh> as a possible head noun, the
}<nuch> still binds pretty strongly to the <pup> as the subject. The
}sentence makes no sense if <nuch> is not the subject of <pup>: the
}{-bogh} clause is just left hanging out there all alone: "the targh
}which (elided subject he) kicked ... Qov aimed a disruptor at the
}coward." By the above argument, this sentence could NOT be twisted into
}making Qov aim a disruptor at the targ...
I'm quite happy with the existence of a construction that allows a locative
only on the subject of a relative clause (RC) if the RC is to be the object
of another clause. There are things in English that only work because the
preceding clause happens to end with the word you need to chain the next
clause off of. I notice this in the MU* environment where you forever write
sentences that start with your characters name, because that's the way the
code works.
}In any case, I haven't ever needed to put <-Daq> <-vaD> <-vo'> or
}especially <-mo'> on the subject of a bogh clause. The best thing to do
}usually is to use two sentences anyway: <targh pup nuch. nuchDaq nISwI'
}Qeq Qov.>
motlh nuch 'uSDu' jojDaq nISwI' vIQeq jIH.
Qov [email protected]
Beginners' Grammarian