tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Tue Dec 03 06:46:27 1996
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
Re: Ship in which I fled, was Re: RE: KLBC: Road
- From: "William H. Martin" <[email protected]>
- Subject: Re: Ship in which I fled, was Re: RE: KLBC: Road
- Date: Tue, 3 Dec 1996 09:45:46 -0500 ()
- Priority: NORMAL
On Tue, 3 Dec 1996 02:00:59 -0800 HurghwI' <[email protected]>
wrote:
> >> 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?
>
> So, if {-'e'} were some other type, why couldn't you say
> DujDaq'e' jIHaw'
> or
> Duj'e'Daq jIHaw'
> depending on what type 'e' was?
You could, but it would be an odd thing. "I flee IN THE SHIP."
"As for in the ship, I flee." If your interest is in marking the
ship as head noun in a relative clause, remember first that
Okrand did not initially intend to use {-'e'} for this purpose.
Krankor came up with the idea and Okrand subsequently agreed
that he thought it was a good idea.
Secondly, you seem to continue to ignore that Okrand has
explicitly said that head nouns of relative clauses can only be
subjects or objects of the verbs in the relative clause. I had
misremembered this to also apply to the main verb, but as
ghunchu'wI' pointed out, canon indicates otherwise.
See HolQeD v4n2p5. "I couldn't make the {-bogh} thing work for
me with anything other than subject or object..."
>
> >charghwI'
>
> -HurghwI'
> Hovjaj 96923.8
charghwI'