tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Thu Dec 13 07:40:10 2007
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
Re: jIHtaHbogh naDev vISovbe'
At 11:31 PM Wednesday 12/12/2007, QeS wrote:
>mu'tlhegh {nuqDaq 'oH puchpa''e'?} lubopbogh QIn vIlaD, 'ej Voragh wa'
>QInDaq mu'tlheghvam vItu':
>
> jIHtaHbogh naDev vISovbe'
> I'm lost. TKD [p.172]
>
>chay' bopoj? vIpoj 'e' vInID 'ach Hatlaw'. mu'tlheghHom wa'DIch
>'ay' 'oHchugh {naDev}'e', Hat (mu'tlhegh bI'reSDaq poHmey Daqmey je
>perbogh DIp lulo'nISlu'), 'ej mu'tlheghHom cha'DIch 'ay' 'oHchugh, Hat
>je (KCDDaq mu'tlhegh {Dajatlhbogh vIyajbe'} wIghaj, 'ach Soj DIp'e'
>ghajnIS mojaq {-bogh} lulo'bogh wotmey roD net Qublaw').
>
>chay' pojnISlu'?
A few years ago qoror suggested analyzing this puzzling sentence as:
"I don't know the area around here that I'm at."
This (colloquial?) expression seems to work because {-taH} on a pronoun
implies location to a Klingon speaker, especially when accompanied by a
noun with the locative suffix {-Daq}. But {naDev} is an exception:
TKD 27: It is worth noting at this point that the concepts expressed by
the English adverbs "here", "there", and "everywhere" are expressed by
nouns in Klingon: {naDev} "hereabouts", {pa'} "thereabouts", {Dat}
"everywhere". These words may perhaps be translated more literally as "area
around here," "area over there," and "all places," respectively. Unlike
other nouns, these three words are never followed by the locative suffix.
>SKI: QeS 'utlh is puzzled about the TKD sentence {jIHtaHbogh naDev
>vISovbe'}. No matter which clause {naDev} is parsed into, it seems to
>be illegal, unless it's further evidence for headless relative clauses.
For the beginners, the other "headless relative" QeS is referring to is:
Dajatlhbogh vIyajlaHbe'
I find no match for what you just said. (KCD .wav file)
That's the only one I can think of this early in the morning. Are there
any others?
--
Voragh
Ca'Non Master of the Klingons