tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Thu Oct 15 05:30:20 1998
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
Re: relative clause attempt
qatlho'. DaH vIyajbej. DaQIjchu'.
Moving on to the next section.
6.2.4 Purpose Clause
SopmeH HoH SuvwI'.
That's a simple one but it's better for me to start simple so I get the
idea. I think that's right.
6.2.5 Sentence as Object
Dun yuch 'e' vIHarbej.
Now with net....
bomtaH tlhInganpu' net legh.
I'm not so sure this is right. I mean to say, "One sees Klingons
singing." It might be better if I say, "bomtaH tlhInganpu' luleghlu."
I don't know if that would be right either. I think that because
"bomtaH tlhInganpu'" is a sentence.... okay now I just confused
myself...it's not a sentence....
Now I will resort to something I learned from Conversational Klingon....
HIQaH! tlhInganbe' jIH!
K'ryntes
William H. Martin wrote:
> On Wed, 14 Oct 1998 06:49:15 -0700 (PDT) K'ryntes
> <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> > rIQ Suppu'bogh yaS.
> >
> > The officer, who jumped, is injured.
>
> Good job. As a very minor note, your English translation would
> be more accurate as "The officer who has jumped is injured." Two
> points:
>
> 1. The {-pu'} on {Suppu'bogh} does not indicate simple past. It
> indicates "perfective". As it happens, the present perfect
> really is a whole lot like the simple past in meaning, so some
> translations do make this slide. Okrand often does this.
> Meanwhile, for clarity of understanding what the grammar is
> really doing here, you should recognize that this is present
> perfect, not simple past.
>
> 2. There are two different kinds of relative clauses in English.
> When the relative pronoun is neuter, we use two different
> pronouns to indicate which one:
>
> A: There are several glasses on the table. Only one is blue. It
> contains a message. "The glass that is blue contains a message."
>
> B: There are several glasses. A couple of them are blue. "The
> glass, which is blue, contains a message."
>
> Notice that in A, telling you that the glass is blue identifies
> the glass which contains the message. In B, telling you that the
> glass is blue is a parenthetical remark. It tells you something
> else about the glass that contains the message, but it does not
> specifically point out which glass contains the message.
>
> Notice that we use commas in B, but not in A and we use "which"
> in B and "that" in A. This is "correct" English grammar. A lot
> of people are sloppy on this particular point.
>
> Meanwhile, we don't have two different relative pronouns for
> people. Similar examples would be:
>
> C: A captain is at a party where several captains are attending.
> He is the only one who is drunk. Only he knows a secret. "The
> captain who is drunk knows the secret."
>
> D: Same scene, except that it is a REAL party and several of the
> captains are drunk, so telling you that the captain is drunk
> tells you something about the captain, but it doesn't identify
> the captain. The comment that he is drunk is parenthetical. "The
> captain, who is drunk, knows the secret."
>
> The only written difference between these is the presence or
> absence of commas. When spoken, the emphasis is a bit different,
> since the D example is, well, parenthetical. It describes the
> captain, but it doesn't identify him.
>
> So, the way you wrote your English translation, the fact that
> this officer jumped is parenthetical and does not identify the
> officer. Perhaps several officers jumped and only one was
> injured. You are just saying that an officer is injured, and, by
> the way, that officer also jumped. The two statements about the
> officer are probably not all that connected.
>
> You should drop the commas if you intended to express that the
> jumping of the officer set him apart so that if I look at all
> the officers, I should attend to the one who jumped, because
> that officer and only that officer is the one I'm talking about
> when I say that the officer is injured.
>
> In Klingon, we have no such division in types of relative
> clause. The examples I've noticed tend toward the exclusive
> type, where the head noun is identified by the relative clause.
> Perhaps there are also examples of parenthetical relative
> clauses that I have not noticed, or perhaps the grammar doesn't
> care and it is a coincidence that the examples have been
> exclusive and not parenthetical. I'm not sure.
>
> So, when you translate the Klingon, generally prefer "that" over
> "which", despite Okrand's own translations that use the wrong
> word, and don't use the commas, unless you want to boldly go
> into the assumption that parenthetical relative clauses do exist
> in Klingon, even though we have not seen any.
>
> Hmm. Maybe Kahless's reference is parenthetical? Is it "Kahless,
> who happens to be unforgettable" or is it "Kahless, not just any
> Kahless, but the one who is unforgettable". Opinions?
>
> charghwI' 'utlh