tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Thu Dec 19 19:13:54 1996
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
Qanqor mu'tlheghmey
- From: "David Trimboli" <[email protected]>
- Subject: Qanqor mu'tlheghmey
- Date: Fri, 20 Dec 96 02:23:12 UT
In my slow process of building up my collection of back issues of HolQeD (got
'em, Lawrence, thanks), I've just read Krankor's column in HolQeD 1:2. I just
noticed something which made my head spin.
In discussing using {-'e'} to disambiguate the head noun of a relative clause,
one of the sentences which he concludes must be valid is
wo'vaD SuHeghbogh Savan
I salute you who will die for the Empire.
He says, " . . . we don't need an explicit pronoun in such a case . . ."
I know that Krankor isn't a canon source, but I find it quite interesting that
his conclusion is that a headless relative clause must be valid. It is
supported by Okrand's sentence on the 3k.wav file on KCD, {Dajatlhbogh
vIyajlaHbe'. yIjatlhqa'}. I know, I don't put much faith in this sentence
either, but it's interesting to point out.
(By the way, if this file IS valid, then it suggests that {jatlh} can take an
object other than a language.)
Also, Krankor says
maHvaD De'mo' ngevpu'bogh jagh maghwI'
Qapchu'ta' HIv'e' nabpu'bogh yaS qIppu'bogh HoD'e'
The attack that was planned by the captain who hit the officer succeeded
perfectly because of the information that was sold to us by the enemy traitor.
Hey! Krankor decided that {HIv} was a noun, too! (Either that, or he just
goofed . . .)
--
SuStel
Beginners' Grammarian
Stardate 96969.5