tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Sat Dec 16 13:28:14 1995
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
Re: {-Daq} and "to be" (was Re: Klingon on IRC)
- From: "d'Armond Speers" <[email protected]>
- Subject: Re: {-Daq} and "to be" (was Re: Klingon on IRC)
- Date: Sat, 16 Dec 1995 16:29:06 -0500 (EST)
- In-Reply-To: <[email protected]>
On Sat, 16 Dec 1995 [email protected] wrote:
> I got the notion from a posting of YOUR's just little over a week ago. I
> will try to find it again. In it, you [~mark] were confirming the
> use of {-'e'} for specifying the Object of a {-bogh} relative clause.
Excuse me while I step in here. We use /-'e'/ to mark the head noun
of an ambiguous relative clause, not the object. The object is marked
by the word's position in the sentence. Here are my favorite
sentences to show how this works:
SoptaHbogh targh vIlegh
"I see the targ which is eating"
Soj Soplu'taHbogh vIlegh
"I see the food which one is eating"
Soj SoptaHbogh targh vIlegh
"I see the targ which is eating the food"
"I see the food which the targ is eating"
That last one is ambiguous, there's no way to know which of /targh/ or
/Soj/ is the head noun. What are we talking about? Krankor suggested
using /-'e'/ to disambiguate this type of construction. Thus we get
Soj'e' SoptaHbogh targh vIlegh
"I see the food which the targ is eating"
Soj SoptaHbogh targh'e' vIlegh
"I see the targ which is eating the food"
Sorry, I don't recall the larger issue that this bears on, but this
may clear up at least the function of /-'e'/ in this context.
> peHruS
--Holtej