tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Wed Aug 25 02:26:24 1993

Back to archive top level

To this year's listing

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

Re: relative clauses (more)

  I wrote:-
  > The `yaS qippu'bogh puq` relative ambiguity needs to be cleared up. Using
suffix `-'e'` is ambiguous: `yaS'e' qippu'bogh puq vilegh` =
  (1) "I saw the officer who hit the child" ('e' as antecedent marker)
  (2) "As for the officer, I saw the child who he hit" ('e' as topic-marker).
  Ask Marc Okrand about allowing *`'I'` as antecedent marker.

  Will Martin <[email protected]> replied on Tue 24 Aug 93
14:51:32 EDT (Subject: Re: relative clauses (more)):-
  > -'e' isn't really explained so well that [(2)] 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."

  TKD version 2 p29 (section 3.3.5) seems to me to unambiguously support my
translation (2) hereinabove as a possible meaning.

  >  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unlikely to endorse any unpublished suffix until somebody funds the THIRD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.

  This chronic aggro with the relative reminds me of what happened in Swahili
(which also has a verb relative suffix), until someone's patience snapped and
he invented a separate relative pronoun `amba`, which became general use.

  >> 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`; `targhmey bachlaHlu'` = "one can
shoot targs"

  >  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.

  I didn't say "any time I want to". Most times suffixes in the same class
contradict each other and could not sensibly be together, e.g. class 1 `X-'a'`
= "big X", `X-Hom` = "little X"; class 5 `X-Daq` = "at/to X", `X-vo'` = "from
X"; whence the rule. Best ask Marc Okrand re "one can shoot targs" etc.

  > 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.
  Then substitute some other circumstance when he may want to say "in which"
or "to which" or "from which" or "for which" or "because of which".

Back to archive top level