tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Sat Sep 17 03:15:40 1994
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
Re: Recent Musings...
On Tue, 13 Sep 1994 [email protected] wrote:
> 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.
toH! mu'tlheghvetlh'e' vIghItlhta'mo' vIqawchu'.
(It was my debut attempt at Klingon writing):
cheghbe'bogh poHDaq yIQongtaHQo' 'a yIQamchoH 'ej pem tlhIv yInaDHa' ghop
HoS yIlo'taHvIS.
"Sleep not away the unreturning time, but arise and reproach the insolent
daylight with a steady hand."
("-Daq"vaD "qaStaHvIS" "qaSDI'" ghap vItamnIS 'e' HIja'neSQo'
pabpo'wI'pu''e'. pab 'oH pab'e' 'a mu'mey 'IH bIH mu'mey 'IH'e'.
mu'meywIj 'IH vIHub nISwI'HIch vIlo'taHvIS. {{;-)
[mu'mey 'IH = poetry], [nISwI'Hich = disrupter pistol]
(Please let me know if there's another word for "poetry".))
> 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'd love to hear more viewpoints on this.
As you can tell from my example above, I like to think that you can use Type
5 noun suffixes to refer to subordinate, relative and purpose clauses as
a whole, and not to just to a specific, indiviual noun. But, if I
understand you correctly, (please forgive me if I don't) if you are
suggesting using {-'e'} on a relative clause as a whole, I don't think
it would be wise to use {-'e'} to refer to an entire relative clause
containing both a subject and object because you still may want to use
the {-'e'} to distinguish the head noun of the clause. I don't know
you would be able to topicalize the relative clause and the head noun of
the clause simultaneously without using two {-'e'}'s.
E.g. 'avwI''e' jeybogh qama','e' loDnI'
'avwI' jeybogh qama''e''e' loDnI'
(It isn't very pretty. {{:-( )
But if you can see a way around using two {-'e'}'s in the same clause,
let me know, I'd be the first person to use such a construction.
> --Holtej
yoDtargh