tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Thu Nov 24 17:33:55 1994

Back to archive top level

To this year's listing



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

Re: Interesting construction



charghwI'vaD, SaHbogh latlhvaD je:

I shall forego resembling my usual stubborn, unbending, opiniated self and
consend to charghwI's position. There is a long line of reasoning behind it,
which I will try to put forth here.

>> {Duj vIbach 'e' vIqawbe'bogh legh Sogh}
>> The leiutenant saw my shooting of the ship which I don't remember

>This is exactly my point. This does NOT say, "The leiutenant
>saw the ship, which I don't remember shooting." It is the act
>of shooting the ship which the leiutenant saw.

I have come by this time to believe that putting the head noun of a {-bogh}
clause in a clause preceding {'e'} while the rest of the {-bogh} clause comes
after the {'e'} is not good Klingon grammar. In other words, I don't think
that the above sentence I wrote {Duj'e' vIbach 'e' vIqawbe'bogh legh Sogh} or
anything similar in construction is good grammar.

>> 1.{Duj'e' vIbach 'e' qawbe'bogh Sogh toD tera'ngan Duy}
>> The ship which the leiutenant doesn't remember me shooting was saved by
the
>> Terran emissary

>Sorry. This doesn't work. "The Terran missionary saved the
>leiutenant, who doesn't remember that I shot the SHIP." I just
>don't believe that the topicalizer can stretch out that far to
>tag the ship as the object. Realize that in Klingon, THIS IS
>REALLY TWO SEPARATE SENTENCES. For human convenience, we write
>them as one. A topicalizer in the first sentence cannot make a
>noun there the object of the second sentence.

A good point there. I had perhaps gleaned right over it before.

>Buy a clue.

I'm saving up. But:

>[charghwI' tries to follow his own advice and get a grip.]
>Okay, okay. It's just that I feel like this thread goes on and
>on and nobody is listening to me explain that it has escaped
>from Klingon grammar and continues to run onward, though it has
>no justification for its continuance. Sorry for the flame. I
>just want to stop reading these things as they continue to
>claim validity when they don't have any.
[...]
>Ambiguity is not the point. This simply is not correctly formed
>Klingon grammar. It is not NEARLY correct.
[...]
>No, the problem is that you are ignoring the structure of
>Sentence As Object, which is at the core of what you are trying
>to do.
[...]
>Well, this is a valid set of constructions in English, but not
>in Klingon, in Hamlet or anywhere else.

Perhaps what bugs me is that you rave so heartily on how much this structure
does not work. I don't see any reasoning behind it. It must be that whatever
reasoning you have in mind was so unobvious to me that you didn't have any
position worth consideration in my mind. But I've reconsidered. And just to
re-iterate:

>> {Duj vIbach 'e' vIqawbe'bogh legh Sogh}
>> The leiutenant saw my shooting of the ship which I don't remember

>This is exactly my point. This does NOT say, "The leiutenant
>saw the ship, which I don't remember shooting." It is the act
>of shooting the ship which the leiutenant saw.

This statement here is still the strongest you make for your side of the
argument. But I also admit the example I used was leaning hard on the sucky
side anyways.

It is true that a relative clause containing a verb coming after {'e'} cannot
have a head noun before {'e'}. That sort of construction does exist quite
stably in many other languages, but I would have to conclude by this time
that Klingon does not support it all too well. It is mainly due to the nature
of {'e'}. From the tlhIngan Hol standpoint, it is actually nominal, and not
subordinative.

But by the same token, {'e'} itself could be used as the head noun (or maybe
tail noun as well) of a relative clause. I am not just trying to resurrect a
dying argument. I'm just pointing out certain things about the argument that
shouldn't be blown away............................yet.

In other words: I believe you are right in saying what you said about {'e'}
and relative clauses. But I would now like to point out that by the nature of
{'e'}, what clauses are still possible in Klingon grammar:

{Duj vIbach 'e' qawbe'bogh Sogh SovchoH Sa'}
"I shoot the ship; that fact, which the lieutenant forgets, is discovered by
the general"

Let's parse this puppy: The first clause is stated {Duj vIbach}, and is
replaced by {'e'} in the next sentence. The general comes to know this fact
and the lieutenant forgets it. {'e'} is functioning as the head noun of the
{-bogh} clause, which is not inconceivable. It is nominal, and it is a
pronoun, and pronouns can be head nouns of {-bogh} clauses. Granted, {'e'}
must always be the object.

Does this concept bother you? If so, please tell me why, rather than spouting
off, which you have plainly been holding yourself from in extreme frustration
with me, I can tell. If you care to continue debating, I would like to hear
reason(s) why you don't think *this* construction is good Klingon grammar. It
does not translate into English well, at least not standard English, so it
may be tough to just flat out reject on any
"you're-reaching-too-far-to-translate-the-English-
structure-literally-rather-than-properly-recasting" basis. I have thought
this out carefully this time and because of the nature of {'e'} do not know
why this should not work in Klingon.

Come to think of it, I don't know why I'm even arguing about this. It's not
as if this would change anyone's attitude about Klingon. Mayhaps I just want
to acknowledge whether this particular structure comes out right in Klingon,
so that if I ever come across it, I'll know what to say, how to defend or
reject it. S'pose so?

O, And One More Thing

Guido, preparing All Guidos for charghwI's flame ("Get ready, Guidos... I
detect it approaching... Prepare for impact...)


Back to archive top level