tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Fri Jun 12 09:40:39 1998
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
RE: Relative clauses
On Thu, 11 Jun 1998 16:55:31 -0700 (PDT) "Andeen, Eric"
<[email protected]> wrote:
> Here are some less literal alternatives.
>
> peHruSvaD jang ghunchu'wI':
>
> >>I know what the restaurant normally serves.
> >
> >roD vay' jab Qe'. nay' vISov.
>
> roD Qe' HIDjolev vIDellaH.
Qe' HIDjolev motlh vIDellaH.
...
> >>The warriors don't go to the places where we found the prisoners.
> >
> >pa' Qama'pu' DISampu'. DaqmeyvetlhDaq jaHbe' SuvwI'pu'.
Daqmey SarDaq qamapu' DItu'. Daqmeyvam DItu'bogh Suchbe'
SuvwI'pu'.
It is not clear to me in English without context that we were
seeking the prisoners when we found them, so I chose {tu'}
instead of {Sam}. I'll also note the insulting implication that
the speaker is not a warrior. Given that, grammatical errors
would not be surprising...
> This one is convtrived even in English.
The problem is that if a direct translation were attempted, the
head noun would wind up being a locative for the relative
clause, and Okrand explicitly said he could not see head nouns
working in any capacity except subject or object of the relative
clause. This is simple to say in two sentences and very likely
impossible in one. It is two thoughts, after all.
> pagh
charghwI'