tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Tue Aug 24 12:27:06 1993

Back to archive top level

To this year's listing

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

Re: relative clauses (more)

Yo, tlhInganpu'

     Getting a little hot and heavy with self proclaimed authority in these
discussions?     

> 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). 

     I doubt you'll find many people who agree with this interpretation of
the sentence. -'e' isn't really explained so well that your interpretation
holds up in the light of Marc Okrand's endorsement of the use of -'e' as was
given in Captain Krankor's article in HolQeD. The sentence means, "I saw the
officer who hit the child." No ambiguity.

> Ask Marc Okrand about allowing *`'i'` as antecedent marker.

     Marc Okrand has already endorsed the -'e' for this function. He is
highly unlikely to endorse any unpublished suffix until somebody funds the
THIRD edition of TKD. Maybe he will, but I'd be highly surprised. It would be
uncharacteristic to his behavior for the past several years.

>   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'.

     This feels like you are getting a little wild with interpretation of a
single phrase on page 9. Yes, you can probably stretch things like this now
and then, but this paragraph sounds like you are now single handedly handing
out license based upon your own authority to ignore the rule against using
two suffixes of the same class ANY TIME YOU WANT TO. It also leads to some
very unusual Klingon phrases.

     Can you REALLY imagine a Klingon, with a straight face, saying, "the
ship from which I flew"? Get real. A Klingon would just point to the view
screen, or name the ship, or just pull out a disruptor and mark the spot on
the tactical display. {{;)>

--   charghwI'

Back to archive top level