tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Fri Oct 10 12:44:42 2008
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
Re: Relative clause fun
- From: Doq <[email protected]>
- Subject: Re: Relative clause fun
- Date: Fri, 10 Oct 2008 15:42:55 -0400
- Authentication-results: smtp07.embarq.synacor.com [email protected]; auth=pass (LOGIN)
- Dkim-signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha1; d=embarqmail.com; s=s012408; c=relaxed/simple; q=dns/txt; [email protected]; t=1223667777; h=From:Subject:Date:To:Mime-Version:Content-Type; bh=7tqZmbhvvKA6a8fOnpYPD6JMw3M=; b=AJGUKn5vzH/0pTKascCCPIApEH7ouv6XARLdDhK6wAoUbQQP3nxU4CFFvBKvg1Jv CjsBl5y09Adc8TZCv85/NY8Wxv/c4hU2n4FPSxn3IizYWrettPmc8paf6f20jno3;
- In-reply-to: <C5141B9B.2527%[email protected]>
- References: <C5141B9B.2527%[email protected]>
- X_cmae_category: 0,0 Undefined,Undefined
I think that this is evidence of absence and not absence of evidence.
While Okrand agreed that you COULD use {-'e'} to disambiguate the noun
the relative clause is referring to, he hasn't actually used that
device much in canon. He's tended to prefer to only have one noun
available to be modified, or to leave it somewhat ambiguous, mostly
discernible from context. He also likes to keep the grammar simple.
If we don't allow nouns other than subjects or objects of the {-bogh}
marked verb to be modified by the relative clause, then the examples
you give are not ambiguous. If we do allow these other nouns, as you
suggest, then your examples become ambiguous with the most likely
meaning the one that is not the one you suggest. I put the other
meaning in context below.
On Oct 9, 2008, at 10:35 PM, d'Armond Speers wrote:
> Relative clauses are discussed in TKD 6.2.3. We are given the
> option of
> referring to the subject of the clause:
>
> qIpbogh yaS vIlegh
>
> ...or the object:
>
> yaS qIpbogh vIlegh
>
> However, in other languages there are other options for which
> element of the
> relative clause can be the head noun, besides just the subject and
> object.
> I’m wondering whether their omission from TKD is just absence of
> evidence,
> or evidence of absence. (I.e., are they possible but not described,
> or are
> they not possible because they are not described?)
>
> Here are some example cases:
>
> (A) Indirect Object
>
> loDvaD tev lunobbogh chaH ghaH [John]’e’
> John is the man who they gave the prize to
John is the prize they gave to the man. ("Everybody ought to have a
maid...")
John is the "they" who gave the man a prize. (He's the only member of
a secret society who gave the prize?)
Or maybe you should just say:
JohnvaD tev lunob.
> (B) Object of preposition
>
> DujDaq nov vIleghbogh vItI’
> I fixed the ship at which I saw the alien
I fixed the alien that I saw on the ship. (Yep. Pulled out my
disruptor and fixed him good.)
Or maybe you should just say:
Dujvetlh vItI'ta'. DujvetlhDaq nov vIleghpu'.
> (C) Possessive
>
> yaS HIch vItI’bogh ghaH
> He’s the officer whose gun I fixed
This one just doesn't work. There are rules about suffixing the first
noun of a noun-noun possessive exactly because of the confusion this
sort of thing creates. Klingon grammar simply doesn't support this
level of complexity. This is one of those things you break down into
two sentences. {yaS ghaH. HIchDaj vItI'ta'.}
I agree that it is interesting to think about this sort of thing, just
to keep it interesting, but after thinking about this, I don't think
it's a good idea. Brainstorming is good, but it's good to filter what
your brain storms up.
> Interestingly, we couldn’t use the {-’e’} disambiguation with any of
> these.
>
> nuq SuQub?
>
> --Holtej
Doq