tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Tue Sep 12 16:57:26 1995
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
Re: }} KLBC: Ring Rhyme again
- From: "Mark E. Shoulson" <[email protected]>
- Subject: Re: }} KLBC: Ring Rhyme again
- Date: Tue, 12 Sep 1995 16:57:26 -0400
>Date: Fri, 8 Sep 1995 21:20:14 -0700 (PDT)
>From: "R.B Franklin" <[email protected]>
>On Fri, 8 Sep 1995, Eskil Heyn Olsen wrote:
>> {morDor} puHDaq Qot QIbmey
>This says, "Shadows lie in the land of Mordor."
>The original "in the land of Mordor where the shadows lie" is a tricky
>thing to translate. Sec. 6.2.3 gives "in the restaurant where we ate" as
>an example of a relative clause, but that section does not give an example
>of a relative clause using "where". If you could make such a
>construction using {-bogh}, it would probably come out like:
>*maSoppu'bogh Qe'Daq (in the restaurant where we ate)
>*QottaHbogh QIbmey [Mordor] puHDaq (in the land of Mordor where the shadows
>lie)
>I've never seen a canon example of this type of construction, but TKD
>seems to imply such a constuction may be possible and it doesn't appear to
>be ambiguous. I would like to hear some input from others on whether or not
>this type of construction seems feasable.
Okrand, in the latest interview, seemed to say it wasn't. He seemed to say
that you can't eally do any better than "We ate in the restaurant. In that
restaurant..." See HolQeD 4:2.
>> bIHHoch che'meH wa' Qeb bIH tu'meH wa' Qeb
>I don't think you can create a compound noun using a noun and a pronoun.
>I had thought that "them" referred to the elven rulers, the dwarven lords
>and the mortal humans, in which case you would use {chaH}. Your use of
>{bIH} would indicate that "them" referred to the other rings, which is
>something I had not considered before, but I can't really say which is right.
>I would use {chaH Hoch} or {bIH Hoch} (all of them). Glen Proechel has
>suggested that {Hoch} may be a number, in which case it would precede the
>pronoun. This is a question we have wanted to ask Marc Okrand about and
>(as far as I know) we are still awaiting clarification.
Careful. I'm in the post-Hoch camp myself, disagreeing with Proechel and
considering Hoch a noun and not a number. Thus, I would say "paq[mey]
Hoch" for "all the books", which I consider a noun-noun construction (the
books possess the "all"). Using that logic, though, you CAN'T say "*chaH
Hoch", since pronouns don't form possessives that way. It's the weird end
of this plan. Pronouns form possessivbes not with N-N, but by suffixes.
So it has to be "Hochchaj" for "all of them"/"their all." Weird, innit?
But not weirder than deciding you can use pronouns in N-N constructions
instead of using their suffixes (like in English... can't say "you's book,
them's table, me's hand, him's arm.")
~mark