tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Tue Aug 24 07:26:21 1993
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
Re: relative clauses (more)
- From: [email protected]
- Subject: Re: relative clauses (more)
- Date: 24 Aug 93 14:27:56 GMT
- Priority: normal
[email protected] (Jacques Guy) wrote on Tue 24 Aug 1993 09:18:28 +1000 (EST)
(Subject: Re: relative clauses (more)):-
> ... you need circumlocutions in Lisu to make clear which is the object and
which the subject. Why should everything be unambiguous, after all?
A primitive peasant society like the Lisu likely suffers far less risk than
a technical scientific society like the Klingons, of serious consequences from
communication ambiguity misunderstandings. The `yaS qippu'bogh puq` relative
ambiguity needs to be cleared up. Using suffix `-'e'` is ambiguous: `yaS'e'
qippu'bogh puq vilegh` = "I saw the officer who hit the child" ('e' as
antecedent marker) = "As for the officer, I saw the child who he hit" ('e' as
topic-marker). Ask Marc Okrand about allowing *`'i'` as antecedent marker.
> Mark Shoulson wrote: "the torpedo with which we destroyed the spaceship" :
What about "Duj wIQaw'meH peng wIlo'bogh"? Doesn't require postulating an
instrumental or anything.
OK, so Marc happened never to come across a Klingon saying anything that
needed an instrumental, or "with" or "in"; but they occur infinitillion times
in known English etc usage. My use of `-lo'` as instrumental is paralleled by
several actual words that are also used as suffixes with similar meaning, e.g.
`taH` = verb "continue" and also class 7 verb suffix = "continuously".
> ... [re using] meH indicating purpose [instead] ... implies that we
missed, or does not make the outcome clear ...
Circumlocutions are messy. Detours often end up in bogs. Like I said, we
need an instrumental suffix and an antecedent-marker suffix.
> ... I can live with "yaS qIppu'bogh puq". It even makes things
interesting! ... doesn't change anything to the fact that "a child hit an
officer". So, isn't the ambiguity that we perceive in "yaS qIppu'bogh puq
vIlegh" in fact an artifact of our relative-clause straight jacket?
But it <does> affect the end consequences of `yaS qIppu'bogh puq vIbach`!!
An interesting literary discussion is one thing; quick clarity of important
communication is another.
> ... 'e' taking the same slot as vo', mo', etc. we're still in the poo when
we want to translate "the room from which..., the reason for which..., etc."
Then break the rules and put two suffixes in the same slot! if necessary to
avoid unclearness. TKD p9 (2nd edition) says that these rules are sometimes
broken. The rule of thumb about two suffixes of the same class is useful to
avoid nonsense forms, since often (but not always) suffixes in the same class
have contradictory meanings; but it is not absolute, as TKD p9 says. Thus:
"the ship from which I flew" = `Dujvo''e' vIpuv` (or `Dujvo''I' vIpuv`, see
above); `targhmey bachlaHlu'` = "one can shoot targs"; `ghe''or 'ellaHlu' 'ej
'e'Daq [proton]beHlo' veqlargh bachlaHlu' 'ej 'e'vo' qenglaHlu' 'ej waw'ma'Daq
ngaSwi'Daq yuvlaHlu'.