tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Wed Feb 14 18:24:07 1996

Back to archive top level

To this year's listing

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]

Re: KLBC> HaDIbaHpu' le' mach

charghwI' writes:
>While there is no explicit rule against it, using a relative
>verb with no explicit noun is gibberish.

I won't go that far.  I reserve the word "gibberish" to describe
complete nonsense.  {vIlajbogh} can mean one of only two things,
and the prefix on the main verb completely determines whether it
means "I/me who accepts it" or "that which I accept".  The first
possibility isn't even necessarily a reasonable thing to say, if
you believe that {-bogh} is restrictive.

> The relative clause
>describes a noun. You need a noun there to describe.

But can't that noun be elided?  I think {vIlegh} is just fine as
a complete sentence.  The object is there, but it is not stated
explicitly.  {vIleghbogh vISop} ought to be easily understood.
{Hoch vIleghbogh vISop} is certainly clearer, and I do in fact
prefer it, but I won't call the phrase without an explicit head
noun "gibberish".

-- ghunchu'wI'               batlh Suvchugh vaj batlh SovchoH vaj

Back to archive top level