tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Thu Oct 15 11:37:06 1998

Back to archive top level

To this year's listing

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]

Re: relative clause attempt

On Thu, 15 Oct 1998 08:53:05 -0700 (PDT) K'ryntes 
<[email protected]> wrote:

> 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.

Fine. "The warrior kills in order to eat."
 
> 6.2.5  Sentence as Object
> 
> Dun yuch 'e' vIHarbej.

Fine. I definitely believe that chocolate is wonderful."
 
> Now with net....
> 
> bomtaH tlhInganpu' net legh.
> 
> I'm not so sure this is right.  I mean to say, "One sees Klingons
> singing."  

More accurately, it means, "One sees that Klingons are singing." 
Your English translation sounds very close to "One sees singing 
Klingons," which is very different in meaning. It is not that 
one sees the Klingons and they are singing. It is that one sees 
the action of singing being done by Klingons. If you want to say 
that one sees the Klingons who are singing, you need a relative 
clause. The Klingons would then be the head noun and subject of 
{Haghbogh} while being the object of {leghlu'}. I'll let you 
finish that one if you like.

> It might be better if I say, "bomtaH tlhInganpu' luleghlu."

This is ungrammatical. You have two main verbs here. Klingon 
sentences don't do that. If I were correcting that, I'd put a 
period after {tlhInganpu'} so it means "Klingons are singing. 
They are seen."

> 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....

Good that you can see that yourself.
 
> Now I will resort to something I learned from Conversational Klingon....
> 
> HIQaH!  tlhInganbe' jIH!

Well, you just said something like that you are a female 
Klingon, if we accept joining {tlhIngan} and {be'} as a compound 
noun. You can't put a verb suffix on a noun, and {tlhIngan} is 
only a noun, even though we seem to use it as an adjective. When 
we say {tlhIngan Hol} in Klingon, that doesn't really have the 
same meaning as when we say "Klingon language" in English. In 
English, "Klingon" is being used as an adjective. Meanwhile, 
{tlhIngan Hol} literally means, "a Klingon's language" or "the 
language of a Klingon". If it were really an adjective meaning 
"Klingon", like we use it in English, you'd be almost right, 
since putting it before the subject would mean "I am not 
Klingon" the same way {jIpI'be'} means, "I am not fat." 
Meanwhile, realize that instead of using a pronoun, you'd say 
(and realize that this is wrong because {tlhIngan} is NOT an 
adjectival verb) *jItlhInganbe'*.

Nope. Here, you are using {jIH} as a verb, so it can take verb 
suffixes: {tlhIngan jIHbe'.}
 
> K'ryntes

charghwI' 'utlh

> charghwI' 'utlh 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

Back to archive top level