tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Tue Sep 13 09:51:28 1994

Back to archive top level

To this year's listing



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

Recent Musings...




Some recent musings and ponderings of my own have reminded me of a
discussion here not long ago between charghwI', ~mark, and yoDtargh.

A while back, while I was BG, I corrected the post of a beginner who had
used a construction like {V-bogh N-Daq ...}, and I claimed that he had
erred, on the basis of TKD 6.2.3 where it says (suggests) that the head of
a relative clause must be a subject or object.  A {N-Daq} construction
is not an object, thus claims TKD 3.3.5 where {-Daq} is discussed.

Krankor yanked my chain, saying no, no, it's not {-Daq} on the head noun
itself, but on the entire clause.  Due to the surface order, one can't
distinguish these points, but I can illustrate with brackets.

1a. * [V-bogh N-Daq]     (* means ungrammatical)
 b.   [V-bogh N]-Daq

Because {V-bogh N} itself acts as a noun in the sentence, it can take
the {-Daq} suffix, and thus was Krankor's objection to my objection.

Now, recall the recent discussion initiated by yoDtargh, commented on by
charghwI', and further remarked by ~mark.  It had to do with
disambiguating the head noun of a complex relative clause, when acting
in conjunction with the noun-noun construction.  The key sentence is:

2a. 'avwI' jeybogh qama' loDnI'

charghwI' pointed out that this has multiple interpretations, and
offered the use of {-'e'} as a disambiguator (following, I believe, Krankor).
 
So, for the three (or four) interpretations, the revised (2a) could come out:

 b. 'avwI'    jeybogh qama'    loDnI''e'
 c. 'avwI''e' jeybogh qama'    loDnI'
 d. 'avwI'    jeybogh qama''e' loDnI'

When it came to the example in (d), ~mark stepped in, and pointed out
that TKD 3.4 prohibits the use of type 5 suffixes on the first noun of a
noun-noun.  charghwI' recanted, grumbling about Okrand's lack of
clarity.

So, of course, my point is this: certainly, if {qama'} in (2d) is seen
as the first noun in a noun-noun, ~mark is correct in his correction.
But, if the first noun is not {qama'}, but instead the entire relative
clause (within which {'e'} is used to disambiguate the head), then
there's no {'e'} on the first noun of a noun-noun, and, in the spirit of
Krankor's earlier comments, should be fine.  Again, the use of  brackets
can make my point clearer:

3a. * ['avwI' jeybogh qama]'e'  loDnI'  (clearly wrong)
 b.   ['avwI' jeybogh qama''e'] loDnI'  (unobjectionable)

I believe charghwI' muttered something to this effect back then, but he
didn't pursue it.  Probably, becuase it had been _me_, and not
charghwI', that Krankor had corrected on the {-Daq} question.

(And BTW Krankor, your corrections are always welcome!  Where
are you these days, you've been awfully quiet since "grouse grouse
grouse"? )

I'd love to hear more viewpoints on this.

--Holtej



Back to archive top level