tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Wed Jan 10 11:22:36 1996
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
jImeQ
>> "Only a fool fights in a burning house."
>>I offer
>> <qachDaq meQbogh SuvtaH qoH neH>
>>Any comments?
mughmeH nIDlu'pu' 'e' jangmeH ja' Seqram:
>This is the famous ship-in-which-I-fled problem, which we've hit our ridgy
>foreheads against for ages. The trouble is that Klingon relative clauses
>only seem to be usable as subjects or objects in the matrix clause. See
>the interview with Marc Okrand in a recent HolQeD (my HolQeDs are at my
>office, and I can't check them now).
First let me reposition the misplaced relative verb so that we have the
sentence
meQtaHbogh qachDaq Suv qoH neH.
A quick rehash of the ship-in-which-I-fled problem is first in order. It is
not feasible to directly express "the ship in which I fled" in Klingon
because the head noun of a relative clause can only be the subject or object
of the relative verb. That much is certain. ~mark, this was a point that
arose in the editing of Hamlet; Nick took the stance (in my defense) that a
phrase such as {meQtaHbogh qachDaq} is grammatical. I don't think the head
noun is restricted from being any particular case in relation to the
independent verb. Now, the problem would have been if the sentence was more
on the lines of "The house in which only a fool fights is on fire" because
you'd be dealing with making {qach} a head noun of {('oHDaq) Suvbogh qoH neH}
and that gets hairy.
But I believe you've got it backwards, ~mark. Head nouns as locatives in the
matrix clause are fine. Care to take me up on the matter? Btw, not to be on
the offensive, but this isn't my only complaint against you lately, if you
recall my letter to the editor in the Sept '95 HolQeD concerning -'e'. I'm
still waiting on you to clear that matter up as well...
Rache: Macht Rache den erlittenen Schmerz vergessen? (Hermann Kesten, "Die
Rache").
Die Rachsu"chtigen heilen rasch zu. {{>:-)
--Guido