tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Wed Aug 25 01:56:32 1993
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
Relatives; mu' chu' lIngghach
- From: [email protected]
- Subject: Relatives; mu' chu' lIngghach
- Date: 25 Aug 93 09:28:00 GMT
- Priority: normal
[email protected] (Jacques Guy) wrote on Wed, 25 Aug 1993 08:53:25 +1000 (EST)
(Subject: Re: relative clauses (again)):-
> (The usual morning brain-stretch. It's 7:40 -- I fell out of bed)
These constructions occurred to me, without thinking:
yaS vIlegh qIppu'bogh puq = I see the officer whom the child hit (1)
yaS qIppu'bogh puq vIlegh = I see the child who hit the officer (2)
If clause order is O-V-S, with marker brackets round the relative clauses:-
(1) := yaS vIlegh (qIppu'bogh puq)
Translate word by word, reversing order to get to English S-V-O order:-
= (child hit [him]) I-see-him officer
= I, [who am] the child who hit him, see the officer.
(2) := (yaS qIppu'bogh puq) vIlegh
= I-see-him (child hit officer)
= I see the child who hit the officer, or
I see the officer who was hit by the child.
> In [(1)] I moved the main verb next to its object "yaS" (why not? Catullus
... [rearranges the words in Latin] "sed mulier cupido quod dicit amanti").
But Latin has distinct nominative and accusative cases to say what is what
when word order is disarranged.
> ... DIvI'may'DujvetlhDaQ ...
Should be -Daq. This form with -DaQ set my Klingon->English analyser off in
a rush of `tlhoqo' Hol` about cockroaches' ponytails!
P.S. `tlho' qo'` = "the (world or realm) of (appreciation or gratitude)"!
[email protected] wrote on Tue 24 Aug 1993 18:39:39 -0400 (EDT) (Subject:
more on relative clauses):-
> ... Appleyard's message which mentioned his idiosyncratic suffixes, e.g.,
-'I' and -lu', I was utterly surprised. I couldn't have fathomed that such
liberalism existed in Klingon ...
I did explain that my *`'I'` and *`-lu'` were not Okrand standard but my
invention. I suppose that, if I must stick absolutely to TKD, and if I run
again into a need for an instrumental, I will have to insert the English in
marker brackets as is done with anything else that has no Klingon word so far:
"I again scuba dived here" = `naDev ji[scuba_dive]qa'pu'`
"I shot him with a phaser" = `pu'[using] vIbachpu'`
"X is at the ship, Y is in the ship" = `DujDaq X, Duj[in] Y`.
until Marc Okrand fills the gap. I feel that there is need to find all
places where additions to known Klingon would be useful, so they can all be
sent to him all at once for him to authorize or reject.
> ... Capt Krankor's column in HolQeD Vol.1 No.3 pp 5-6 [says re] relative
clauses that "if there is a type 5 noun suffix on one of the nouns, that one
must be the 'head noun.'"
It isn't the headword in `'ejyo'waw'<Daq> targh bachpu'bogh HoD vIleghpu'` =
"I saw the captain who shot the targ in the starbase"!
> His example is yaSmo' qIppu'bogh HoD qaSpu' qIQ, where yaSmo' is
unquestionably the head noun (which functions as the object of the relative
verb.) Thus, ANY type 5 noun suffix (not just -'e') can be used to specify the
head noun of a relative clause.
Literally "mutiny happened (captain hit officer_due_to)". Luckily here the
relative clause makes poor sense unless the -mo' is ignored, therefore the
-mo' must refer to the role of yaS in the main clause. This sort of help from
context can't always be relied on.