tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Tue Jun 30 18:58:53 1998
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
Re: List of Klingon fauna
mujang peHruS:
><< Heghlu'meH QaQ jajvam. nuqDaq 'oH <-meH> nach'e'?
> SISchugh, bIyIQchoH. nuq 'oH <-chugh> nach'e'?
> nenlu'pa', quvnISlu'. <-pa'> nach Dalegh'a'?
> jIHub'eghrupmo' jISuvvIpbe'. <-mo'> nach vItu'be'.
> maSoppu'DI' maja'chuq. <-DI'> nach Dangu'laH'a'? >>
>
>wa': -lu'
>cha: bI-
>wej: -lu'
>loS: jI-
>vagh: ma-
nuqjatlh? jaS <nach> mayajbejqu' jay'! chay' mu'vam Dalo' SoH?
What are *you* thinking of when you use the word {nach}? We refer to
"head nouns" of relative clauses. Relative clauses in Klingon have the
suffix {-bogh} on the verb. They have a head noun because the clause
is used as a noun in a sentence, and the head noun is the noun being
described by the clause. Other subordinate clauses do not have anything
like a "head noun"; the entire phrase is being used to supplement the
meaning of the main verb.
In any case, {bI-} and {jI-} and {ma-} are prefixes identifying the
person of the subject and object. They are not nouns, and I can't see
calling them "heads" of anything. And there's absolutely no way I can
accept {-lu'} as a "head"; it specifically *denies* the existence of a
definite subject, and in the examples I gave, there's no object either.
Forgive my going on so strongly and at such length here. It just hits
one of my buttons when someone misstates a point of grammar so badly,
-- ghunchu'wI'