tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Wed Aug 25 17:27:05 1993

Back to archive top level

To this year's listing

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

Re: relative clauses (more)

On Aug 25,  5:29am, [email protected] wrote:
> Subject: Re: relative clauses (more)
...
>   TKD version 2 p29 (section 3.3.5) seems to me to unambiguously support my
> translation (2) hereinabove as a possible meaning.

     While I always appreciate specific citations in these examples, I sit
here reading the text to which you direct me and am not in the slightest bit
convinced that you are right. We simply disagree, and I don't read droves of
responses from others who DO agree that you are right in this interpretation.

     In the Okrand approved use of -'e', the noun becomes the topic of the
relative clause, rather than the topic of the main clause. Is that really
such a stretch, especially since it is so rarely as useful in the explicit
TKD function?

     This is not intended to be a flame. I have, myself, been very attached
to an idea about Klingon grammar that did not ultimately prove to be widely
accepted in the Klingon community. Before being introduced to the lack of
distinction between direct and indirect objects, I thought <qajatlh> should
be <SoHDaq jIjatlh> or <SoHvaD jIjatlh>. It took weeks for others to convince
me otherwise. (I STILL don't think it's a bad idea, but...) The point is,
your suggestion here is unconventional and doesn't seem to be attracting a
great deal of support. One begins to wonder from whence comes the drive to
continue to argue a point so few seem to wish to accept.

     This is just a suggestion. A mere whim you might consider. If you really
enjoy being the sole practicioner of a dialect of the native tongue of a
fictitious race, go for it. Just don't expect the rest of us to understand
you.

--   charghwI'

Back to archive top level