tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Thu Apr 22 13:54:54 2004
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
Re: Headless relatives and {SuDbogh Dargh 'ej wovbogh}
- From: "QeS lagh" <[email protected]>
- Subject: Re: Headless relatives and {SuDbogh Dargh 'ej wovbogh}
- Date: Fri, 23 Apr 2004 06:47:09 +1000
- Bcc:
ghItlhpu' SuStel:
>There are about eight examples of "sentence conjunctions" joining
>non-sentence verb phrases in our canon of Klingon. I once posted them to
>the list; I'm not prepared to do that now. It is quite clear to me that
>the
>distinction between a verbal phrase and a sentence in Klingon is minimal.
That's what I thought, too, which is why I asked.
>In /SuDbogh Dargh 'ej wovbogh/, you have two relative clauses that have
>exactly the same relation to the head noun /Dargh/.
So {Dargh} is just elided in the second one because we know what's being
spoken about? That's what my question was: the conjunction {'ej} would seem
to indicate that {wovbogh} *is* separate from {SuDbogh}, and hence that
{wovbogh} was explicitly headless (if not implicitly).
That being said, I guess that {SuDbogh Dargh 'ej wovbogh Dargh} would seem
to indicate that there are *two* types of tea being spoken about, not just
one.
Savan.
QeS lagh
_________________________________________________________________
Personalise your phone with chart ringtones and polyphonics. Go to
http://ringtones.com.au/ninemsn/control?page=/ninemsn/main.jsp