tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Sat Jan 31 17:37:12 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 17:36:12 -0800
At 09:42 98-01-30 -0800, charghwI' wrote:
}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.
Someone did this once in a translation for a TV station's web page, shortly
before qep'a' loSDIch, and I said I thought it was cool. You all beat on me
with sticks, though, so I now have a conditioned aversion to the practice.
}> 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.
I'm starting to really like the idea that the subject but not object of a
relative clause can take a locative.
So this: *Qe'Daq DaparHa'bogh qagh vISop
Becomes this: ?DubelmoHbogh Qe'Daq qagh vISop.
"I ate gakh in the restaurant you like."
It matches up well with meQtaHbogh qachDaq &c.
In fact it matches so well I'm taking the "?" off it. :)
DubelmoHbogh Qe'Daq qagh vISop.
Qov [email protected]
Beginners' Grammarian