tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Mon Sep 30 18:08:19 1996
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
RE: An interesting Scrabble idea
- From: [email protected] (Alan Anderson)
- Subject: RE: An interesting Scrabble idea
- Date: Mon, 30 Sep 1996 20:10:56 -0500
I wrote:
>{-bogh} has a similar problem in that a headless
> relative clause doesn't make sense either.
>
>True enough in Klingon, but not as a generalization. "Can I help who's =
>next?" is a relative clause with no (a null) head noun. (I love the =
>term 'headless relative'!)
I'm not sure that the general problem can even occur in English. The
relative pronouns *are* pronouns, and thus might act as their own "head
noun" if the true head is left unstated.
Since we were discussing Klingon Scrabble, the issue of relative clauses
in languages other than Klingon isn't really relevant, though. I worry
that if I made a "house rule" that type 5 noun suffixes may not be placed
on verbs as if they were being used adjectivally, I might be painting
myself into a corner that makes me reject verbs with {-bogh} as well. It
doesn't trouble me *too* much, though; one has to draw the line somewhere.
-- ghunchu'wI'