tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Fri Apr 09 20:38:06 2004
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
Re: joj usage...
At 07:55 PM 4/9/2004, QeS lagh wrote:
>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.
Thanks.
The main thing confusing me, I think, is that I see two parses that are
plausible within the
rules of the grammar, but the experts favor an implausible parse of using
{je} to join two
verb phrases. Probably the best thing that I can do is describe the two
parses that I see, and
someone can point out the flaws:
The first one:
1) two {-bogh} clauses
yoHbogh ghach "he who is brave"
matlhbogh ghach "he who is loyal"
2) {je} joins nouns
[noun] [noun] je
3) {-bogh} clause can be used anywhere a noun is used
yoHbogh gach matlhbogh gach je
4) pronouns not required
yoHbogh matlhbogh je
5) used as first noun in noun-noun
yoHbogh matlhbogh je SuvwI'
"The he who is brave and he who is loyal warrior", which is the object of
the rest of the sentence
in the anthem. Actually, I thought that this was clever of Dr. Okrand,
since it reflects the
highly styled "warrior brave and true" of the original. That is, a
structure that one wouldn't normally
use in prose, but works in poem and song.
The other one:
1) {-bogh} clause
matlhbogh SuvwI'
2) {je} following verb means 'also'
matlhbogh je SuvwI' "the warrior who is also loyal"
3) {-bogh} clause used as the head of another -bogh clause
yoHbogh matlhbogh je SuvwI'
"the warrior who is brave and who is also loyal" with some license on the
ordering.
mu'tlheghmeywIjDaq pebach!
Dar'Qang
bItaghbe'chugh bIrInbe'ba'