tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Sun Aug 21 09:09:12 1994
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
Re: open can of worms
According to [email protected]:
>
> Are Klingon {-bogh} clauses descriptive or limiting?
If I were to believe that Okrand was following current English
writing conventions that state that "which" is used for
descriptive (A.K.A. "nonrestrictive) clauses and these clauses
are set apart from the main sentence by commas, while "that" is
used for limiting (A.K.A. "restrictive") clauses and are NOT
set off from the rest of the sentence with commas [I learned
this from my PC's grammar checker, believe it or not], then
we'd have to assume that {-bogh} can be used for both, since
Okrand says {-bogh} is translated into English as "who, which,
where, and, most commonly, that."
Meanwhile, the examples are incomplete and lack sufficient
context to tell if they are restrictive or nonrestrictive. Most
appear to be restrictive, but I could imagine complete
sentences containing them for which the relative clause would
be parenthetical, and so, nonrestrictive.
> And adjectivals, for
> that matter.
Again, I think you are working toward a level of subtlety that
is not present in the language. As an example, if I say:
nom bIjatlhnIS
Does this mean, "Quickly, you must speak!" or does it mean,
"You must speak quickly!" In other words, am I directing you to
begin speaking soon, or am I telling you that you must keep
your pace of speech above normal? I personally lean toward the
latter, since we can express the former quite effectively with
{DaH bIjatlhnIS}.
> I would also like to ask about how one would go about negating adverbials and
> clauses.
Very carefully, of course.
> (If you're confused on any of these terms, you can look them up in elementary
> linguistics or grammar materials.
Or PC Grammar Checkers...
> Guido#1, Leader of All Guidos
charghwI'