tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Thu Oct 15 13:34:31 1998
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
Re: relative clause attempt
On Thu, 15 Oct 1998 08:33:42 -0700 (PDT) Alan Anderson
<[email protected]> wrote:
...
> >2. There are two different kinds of relative clauses in English.
> >...
> >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.
> >...
> >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.
>
> I think stative verbs used adjectivally are usually parenthetical.
> {SuDbogh HIvje'} "the glass which is blue" implies to me that the
> blueness is the distinguishing feature which identifies the glass.
> {HIvje' SuD} "the blue glass" sounds like it's just giving extra
> information about the color of the glass.
So, what about my example? I point to a table via a gesture of
my head. It has 12 glasses on it. Six are clear. Five are red.
One is blue. There is an important message in the blue glass. It
is the secret code to disarm the bomb I am holding in my two
hands. The countdown timer is down to single digits. If I move
my hands, we both get blown to smitherines. You ask me, {nuqDaq
QIn le'?}
I answer, {QIn le' ngaS SuDbogh HIvje'.)
Now, do you consider that to be a parenthetical reference to the
glass's color?
And, if you are bothered by my not just calling it {HIvje' SuD},
then let's say that 6 of the glasses are clear and big. Three
are blue and small. One is red and small. One red and big. One
is big and blue.
QIn le' ngaS SuDbogh HIvje' tIn!
It strikes me that parenthetical remarks can easily
be moved to separate sentences, but without relative
clauses, we can't express the exclusive version of this.
So, if I want to say, "The captain, who is drunk, is keeping a
secret," I can just say:
pegh HoD. chech.
Or:
chech HoD. pegh.
Being drunk and keeping a secret have no functional dependency.
But if five captains are at a party and one of them is
staggering around, singing loudly off key, slurring his words
and spilling his beer, and you ask me who is keeping a secret
and I know that the drunk one is the one who fits that
description, so I want to say, "The captain who is drunk is
keeping a secret," the most logical way to say it is:
pegh chechbogh HoD.
See? Now, the purpose of pointing out that the captain is drunk
is to point out which captain I'm talking about when I say he is
keeping a secret.
In all the "child who hit the officer" examples, the relative
clause serves in this way. I don't know of any canon that
doesn't. Maybe there is something I didn't notice. I hope not.
I'd prefer that this be the only valid relative clause, since it
doesn't need to carry the other function, since parenthetical
remarks don't need to be packed into an otherwise focussed
sentence.
> >...
> >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?
>
> My opinion is that it's the latter. It's "Kahless the Unforgettable"
> as opposed to "Kahless the targh-breeder whom most have forgotten." :-)
> If you'll forgive the introduction of some Christian terminology here,
> it's like "Jesus Christ" == "the Jesus who is anointed" as opposed to
> "the Jesus who plays baseball."
You've convinced me.
> -- ghunchu'wI'
charghwI'