tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Thu Aug 18 23:37:03 1994

Back to archive top level

To this year's listing

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

Re: chu'wi' jIH

>From: Captain Krankor <[email protected]>
>Date: Mon, 15 Aug 1994 18:21:42 -0400

I'm a few days and a few hundred messages behind, so bear with me if I'm a
little out of date.  I just have a few points (so far).

>teHqu'.  nIDvIp nuch.  nIDQo' qoH.  'ach nIDta' QapwI' Hoch.

>(ghojwI'vaD ghojmoHwI'vaD je teHbej paQDI'norghvam {{;-)

This is one of the lovliest proverbs I've seen come out of this list (which
does seem to love aphorisms).  Wonderful.

>>> cheghbe'bogh poHDaq yIQongtaHbe' 'a yIQamchoH
>>> 'ej jaj tlhIv yInaDHa', ghop HoS yIlo'taHvIS.
>>
>>If you want {poH} to be the head of the relative clause 
>>{cheghbe'bogh}, then it can't have the {-Daq} suffix on it.  Locatives 
>>are not subjects or objects (TKD 3.3.5).

>Beg to differ, jupwI', beg to differ.

>A -bogh phrase is a noun phrase.  It is true that here, the poH is acting
>as the subject of chegh, but the whole phrase is acting as the locative
>for the whole sentence, specifically for the main verb Qong.  Now, I
>suppose that one might take exception with -Daq being used somewhat
>metephorically, but I'm lenient on that and, in any case, that is not the
>issue.  I know I talked about this in one of my HolQeD columns, so you
>might wanna refer there for more detail, but, in a nutshell, if:

>yeqQo'bogh yuQvetlh     ==  that planet that refuses to cooperate

>then I can certainly say:

>yeqQo'bogh yuQvetlhvo' ghoS Duy''a'qoq chu'

>    "The new *ambassador* <spit> comes from that planet that won't
>   cooperate"


>Some more examples:

>yaS qIppu'bogh HoDvaD tajvam yInob

>    "Give this knife to the captain who hit the officer."

>yaSvaD qIppu'bogh HoD tajvam yInob

>    "Give this knife to the officer whom the captain hit."

>juHDaq chenmoHpu'bogh Jack jIyIn

>    "I live in the house that Jack built."

I don't know about this one, Captain.  This has been a sticking point for
ages (the other half of the ship-in-which-I-fled problem).  I mean, if you
go blithely sticking type 5 suffixes on subjects or objects of relative
clauses, they're going to look awfully misplaced.  Moreover, how can you
tell if the type 5 applies to the relative clause or the containing clause?
Oh what if the head noun of the relative clause isn't the subject or the
object, but it fills a different place in the containing clause?  The
planet rebelled because of the ship in which the officer hit the child.
You'd need bith "-Daq" and "-mo'" on the same noun!  I think we need to
hear from Okrand on this one before even you make pronouncements like this.
Or at least expect confusion.

>By the way, if I may be permitted to take my own poetic attempt, gleaning
>meaning from the Klingon attempt (since I don't have the intended English
>in front of me):

>narghlI'taHvIS cheghQo'bogh poH yIQongtaHQo'

I hope I'm not rubbing salt into the wound by being the hundredth person to
point out that "-lI'" and "-taH" are both type 7 verb suffixes and can't
appear on the same word.

>--Qanqor, List Grammarian


~mark

Back to archive top level