tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Fri Apr 09 17:56:08 2004
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
Re: joj usage...
- From: "QeS lagh" <[email protected]>
- Subject: Re: joj usage...
- Date: Sat, 10 Apr 2004 10:55:22 +1000
- Bcc:
ghItlhpu' Dar'Qang:
>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].
jang SuStel:
>No it's not. This is otherwise unattested grammar, probably ungrammatical
>to meet the needed meter of the song.
I'll direct Dar'Qang to my Wiki page on Common Grammar Questions And
Problems:
/wiki/index.php?Common%20Grammar%20Questions%20And%20Problems
There's a discussion of ungrammatical relative clauses there under the
heading "Relative Clauses: What Possibilities?" This oddity is discussed,
along with the headless relative phenomenon.
>/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:
I do understand where Dar'Qang is becoming confused: a noun conjunction is
being used here, which would *seem* to imply that the two things being
conjoined are nouns. Nonetheless, SuStel is right on the money: {-bogh} is
always a marker of a relative clause, not of anything else. The conjunction
is the problem, not the relative clauses.
Savan.
QeS lagh
_________________________________________________________________
You could be a genius! Find out by taking the IQ Test 2003. $5.50 (incl
GST). Click here: http://sites.ninemsn.com.au/minisite/testaustralia/