tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Fri Apr 16 05:27:11 2004

Back to archive top level

To this year's listing

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

RE: joj usage...

Eric Andeen ([email protected]) [KLI Member] [Hol po'wI']

>> 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.
> Ehhh . . . this one has more credibility, but I'm not convinced.
>
> yoHbogh (matlhbogh je SuvwI')
> (warrior who is also loyal) who is brave
>
> It seems to be grammatical, but it doesn't seem to make much sense.  As you
> say, the ordering is wrong.  And if correct, this would be, I think, our
> only example of nested relative clauses.
 
I've always thought the <je> was meant as the adverbial 'also', and that the conjunction <'ej> was simply omitted to fit into the song. In common practice, it would probably be written <yoHbogh SuvwI' 'ej matlhbogh je>, but putting the subject on the second verb rather than the first is certainly grammatical. Omitting the conjunction does not, as far as we know, fit into the grammar, but it seems like a pretty minor error, and well within the bounds of poetic license - especially since Dr. Okrand is the one who issues the license in the first place.
 
pagh

-- Binary/unsupported file stripped by Ecartis --
-- Type: application/ms-tnef
-- File: winmail.dat

Back to archive top level