tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Wed Feb 09 07:31:05 1994
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
Re: Adams Family Motto:
- From: Captain Krankor <[email protected]>
- Subject: Re: Adams Family Motto:
- Date: Wed, 9 Feb 94 16:53:48 -0700
>Whoever dictated that the relative clause must have an explicit head noun?
>I've just read TKD section 6.2.3 very carefully and I find that its
>implications in no way could support an argument in favor of required
>explicit head nouns. (In all fairness, tho, the opposing argument has no
>support from this section either). So, its one of those
>your-guess-is-as-good-as-mine situations.
>
>In this case, the head noun is an implicit {chaH}. I see nothing wrong with
>that. But not being a grammarian, I must of course be totally open to any
>disagreements.
You are correct, there is nothing to require a head noun per se.
The evidence we have available suggests that -bogh verbs are
grammatically no different from other verbs, as far as subject,
objects, etc. So, technically, there is no clear requirement to
have an explicit head noun. I suspect, though, that in practice,
one probably usually wants to put in the explicit pronoun, just for
clarity sake.
The exception, of course, is when you need something to hang a noun
suffix on:
maHeghrupbogh maH "we who are prepared to die"
or just
maHeghrupbogh "we who are prepared to die"
but:
maHeghrupbogh maHvo' nob "a gift from us who are prepared to die"
--Krankor