tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Mon May 13 06:36:06 1996
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
Re: tugh muSuch jup chu'
- From: "William H. Martin" <[email protected]>
- Subject: Re: tugh muSuch jup chu'
- Date: Mon, 13 May 1996 09:35:32 -0400 (EDT)
- In-Reply-To: <[email protected]> from "Mark E. Shoulson" at May 8, 96 08:02:10 am
According to Mark E. Shoulson:
>
> >Date: Wed, 8 May 1996 05:33:30 -0700
> >From: [email protected] (Alan Anderson)
>
> >>>HaStaDaq nargh ngoDmey ram Sovlu' 'e' luDajbogh
> >>>mu'mey'e'.
>
> >SuStel writes:
> >>Ick. Can you do that? The {'e'} construction on a verb with {-bogh}, I
> >>mean.
>
> >I wasn't too sure about it, but the thoughts were flowing fast and I
> >didn't take a lot of time to analyze the suspicious grammar. charghwI'
> >also had trouble with this, but he explained the problem and I agree
> >with him. Because {'e'} actually refers to a previous sentence, it is
> >not appropriate in a relative clause stuck in the middle of a sentence.
>
> jIQochlaw'. I see your point (and I never thought of it that way before),
> but I'm not sure I agree. In a certain sense, "-bogh" clauses are
> sentences as well. I know I've used things like "nuchargh 'e' nabbogh
> tlhInganpu'", and I saw them in Hamlet and never objected. I think it's
> too useful and natural an interpretation. How else can you do it, in
> general?
Simple. You can't. If we take the explanation given in TKD, we
have to interpret Sentence As Object in Klingon as literally
two separate complete sentences with one acting as the object
of the other. A relative clause is NOT a complete sentence. It
is part of a larger complete Klingon sentence. I'd use two
sentences in your example:
nuchargh nab tlhInganpu' puS. tlhInganpu'vam...
It's not all that verbose or awkward, and unlike your example,
it does not require ignoring a fairly explicit description of
the grammar in TKD.
> ~mark
charghwI'
--
reH lugh charghwI' net Sov.