tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Mon Dec 18 10:44:55 1995
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
Re: {-Daq} and "to be" (was Re: Klingon on IRC)
>Date: Sat, 16 Dec 1995 11:37:56 -0800
>From: [email protected]
>In a message dated 95-12-15 10:24:36 EST, you write:
>>Not unless we have a deepseated need to be unambiguous. But your "-'e'"
>>method is unattested, so far as I know.
>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, your were confirming the use of {-'e'} for
>specifying the Object of a {-bogh} relative clause.
I recall that I said that "-'e'" can be used to mark the head-noun of a
relative clause (e.g. "yaS qIppu'bogh puq'e' vIlegh" means "I see the child
who has hit the officer" while "yaS'e' qIppu'bogh puq vIlegh" means "I see
the officer whom the child has hit." Note that "yaS qIppu'bogh puq vIlegh"
is also legal, just ambiguous. cf. Hov ghajbe'bogh ram rur pegh
ghajbe'bogh jaj). I don't see how this applies to making "-'e'" reduce the
scope of a preceding "-Daq".
~mark