tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Sat Jan 31 17:37:06 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 17:36:05 -0800
At 00:01 98-01-30 -0800, SuStel wrote:
}-----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.
}
}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.
And maybe we can't do that, even if meQtaHbogh etc. is correct (which I accept).
Qov [email protected]
Beginners' Grammarian