tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Fri Aug 08 06:23:37 1997

Back to archive top level

To this year's listing

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

Re: Location of {-mo'}

Guido#1:

I think this is simply an unresolved issue. Okrand explicitly
lists a couple subordinate clauses as being able to preceed or
follow the main verb. He gives other instances (like {-meH})
for which this is not true. He then gives {-mo'} as a new verb
suffix and says it is used like the noun suffix. He does not
mention whether it behaves like the subordinate clauses which
can follow the main verb. The noun suffix it supposedly behaves
like cannot follow the verb.

So, we have associations with items which behave differently.
By either association, we know that it is okay for the {-mo'}
clause to preceed the main verb. Maybe it is okay to follow or
maybe not. We have no canon to say it is okay. All it will take
is one canon example from Okrand or a statement from him and
your point is perfectly valid. Until then, your point is not
really dependably valid. It might be a convenience to help
English speakers translate to Klingon more easily, but it is
certainly not a necessity, and it may be wrong.

charghwI'

According to Guido:
> 
> SuStel, as regards statements of Mark Mandel
> >> Not really.  It's become a custom on this list to put <-mo'> clauses 
> >> before the sentences they modify and recommend that others do 
> >> likewise, in imitation of the canonical placement of <-meH> clauses 
> >> as prescribed in TKD section 6.2.4.  But we have no canonical rule 
> >> on the placement of <-mo'> clauses.  
> >> 
> >> Nouns with <-mo'>, on the other hand, do normally go at the beginning 
> >> of the sentence... but, come to think it, I don't know where that rule is
> >> stated. 
> >> HISovmoH vay'!
> 
> >"Any noun in the sentence indicating something other than subject of object 
> >comes first, before the object noun.  Such nouns usually end in a Type 5 noun 
> >suffix."  (TKD p.60)
> 
> >I think it's possible that {-mo'} may be another subordinate clause that only 
> >comes at the beginning of the sentence.  Not because it works the same way as 
> 
> I've always gone by pg. 62's remarks on subordinate clauses. The difference
> from the noun suffix -mo' is that very long phrases can crop up in a
> "because" clause and people need a little leeway as to how they may arrange
> their thoughts.
> 
> If I am forced to prepose everything before my main verb and subject, I may
> have a lot of trouble getting to the point. vIHoH vIneH, reH SojwIj nIHmo'
> 'ej 'ongwI' Dalaw'mo' Soghvetlh'e'. Its kinship to the noun suffix -mo'
> doesn't have a lot of bearing on grammar. One is a type 5 noun suffix, the
> other is a type 9 verb suffix, and these are governed by different rules.
> 
> And whether the subordinate clause answers qatlh or ghorgh or chay' probably
> has little bearing. The substitution principle doesn't even generalize over
> all canonical cases.
> 
> 
> guido
> 
>

Back to archive top level