tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Fri Apr 09 06:41:07 2004

Back to archive top level

To this year's listing

• Index by Date
• Index by Thread
• Index by Author

Re: joj usage...

David Trimboli ([email protected])

• From: "David Trimboli" <[email protected]>
• Subject: Re: joj usage...
• Date: Fri, 9 Apr 2004 09:40:27 -0400
• References: <[email protected]> <[email protected]> <[email protected]>

From: "Dar'Qang" <[email protected]>
> Setting aside the issue about whether or not prefix-implied pronouns can
> serve as {-bogh} clause head
> nouns, the follow fragment from the Warriors' Anthem:
>
> yoHbogh matlhbogh je SuvwI'
>
> Seems to be implicitly using [noun noun {je} noun].

No it's not.  This is otherwise unattested grammar, probably ungrammatical
to meet the needed meter of the song.

/yoHbogh/ and /matlhbogh/ are verbs acting as relative clauses.  They are
not nouns.  They're not even headless relative clauses.  Ways to write this
grammatically include:

yoHbogh SuvwI' 'ej matlhbogh
yoHbogh 'ej matlhbogh SuvwI'

Neither fits the meter.  /SuvwI'/ is the head noun in each case.  You've got
a /yoHbogh SuvwI'/ who is also a /matlhbogh SuvwI'/.

SuStel
Stardate 4272.6

• References:
  • joj usage...
    • From: [email protected]
  • Re: joj usage...
    • From: Steven Boozer <[email protected]>
  • Re: joj usage...
    • From: Dar'Qang <[email protected]>

• Prev by Date: follow-up
• Next by Date: Re: joj usage...
• Previous by thread: Re: joj usage...
• Next by thread: joj usage...
• Index(es):
  • Date
  • Thread
  • Author

Back to archive top level