tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Mon Dec 02 19:32:45 1996
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
Ship in which I fled, was Re: RE: KLBC: Road
- From: "William H. Martin" <[email protected]>
- Subject: Ship in which I fled, was Re: RE: KLBC: Road
- Date: Mon, 2 Dec 1996 22:32:11 -0500 ()
- Priority: NORMAL
On Mon, 2 Dec 1996 18:00:54 -0800 HurghwI' <[email protected]>
wrote:
> jatlh SuStel:
> >Actually, that's "room which fighters travel." I don't think that really
> >works. It doesn't mean "Room in which fighters travel," and this is what you
> >want. And here we have . . . "the ship in which I fled" problem! (See the
> >FAQ).
>
> Can you explain what's illegal in this? I was just thinking . . .
>
> Duj'e' vIlo'bogh jIHaw'meH.
> The ship which I used in order to flee.
First, you should realize that a verb with {-meH} PRECEDES the
noun or verb it modifies. So, if you put it first, you get:
jIHaw'meH Duj'e' vIlo'bogh
As a sentence fragment, here you don't need {-'e'} at all, since
the only noun available to be head noun of the relative clause
is {Duj}, so it can become:
jIHaw'meH Duj vIlo'bogh
Let's see it in context:
jatlh nuv wa': chay' bInargh?
jatlh nuv cha' (pointing out the window): jIHaw'meH Duj
vIlo'bogh 'oH Dujvetlh'e'.
It looks like a successful recasting of this specific example,
though it does not offer a formula for the problem this classic
(created by ~mark) example points toward. Okrand has explicitly
stated in an interview in HolQeD that head nouns of relative
clauses need to be subject or object of both the relative
clause's verb and of the sentence's main verb. They can't be
locatives.
Think about it. If the head noun were a locative for the
relative clause's verb, that noun is still a locative for the
main verb. If it is locative for the main verb, it must also
be locative for the relative clause as well. The relative clause
modifies the noun, but the locative suffix changes the nature of
that noun and its function in a sentence, giving it an adverbial
function. That's what most Type 5 suffixes do. You can't have a
relative adverbial phrase. It's just too weird.
> It seems the whole thing could be solved if Okrand made 'e' some other
> suffix type!
Not at all. Relative clauses and locatives are fundamentally
incompatible in Klingon grammar. One is adjectival in nature,
while the other is adverbial. Is this helping?
> -HurghwI'
> Hovjaj 96922.8
charghwI'