tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Thu May 16 10:01:48 1996
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
Re: tugh muSuch jup chu'
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
>Date: Mon, 13 May 1996 16:03:13 -0700
>From: [email protected]
>In a message dated 96-05-13 09:52:02 EDT, charghwI' wrote (concerning using
>'e' for joining relative clauses):
>>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.
>Despite this, I still think that {'e'} SHOULD refer to a sentence, not a
>relative clause. If only for my sanity when I try to read it!
Wait, maybe I'm missing something. I thought the case under consideration
was something like "HoD DaHoH 'e' leghbogh puq vIHoH" for "I killed the
child who saw you kill the captain." 'e' is not referring to a relative
clause, it's referring to a whole sentence: HoD DaHoH. You should never
need to nominalize a relative clause; it's already nominalized by virtue of
being relative. The problem seems to come up in cases like:
muqIp HoD DaHoH 'e' leghbogh puq
for "The child who saw you kill the captain hit me", since the sentence
referred to by 'e' isn't strictly the "preceding sentence" but rather a
clause (albeit an independent, complete one), that's sort of sandwiched
inside another sentence.
Or is this not what we were discussing?
~mark
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: 2.6.2
Comment: Processed by Mailcrypt 3.4, an Emacs/PGP interface
iQB1AwUBMZtfbcppGeTJXWZ9AQHbdwL8D1/bYL2IZ4QVMvrjM54b/IEIsVRY+UkS
++Bpp5K0DSiwmK7PRRuivHgCrO3k4ZybfwpRyiBpUM/U5g5NSMfg9DMy9bE00LXa
PpQQ6xBjoovgWMD0M6KEzyGobjRvhz74
=JMSK
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----