tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Sun Jul 06 08:59:18 1997
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
Re: Apposition
- From: "William H. Martin" <[email protected]>
- Subject: Re: Apposition
- Date: Sun, 6 Jul 1997 12:01:30 -0400 ()
- Priority: NORMAL
charghwI'vo':
Since this is not marked KLBC, though one might argue otherwise,
I comment.
On Sat, 5 Jul 1997 12:34:55 -0700 (PDT) Neal Schermerhorn
<[email protected]> wrote:
> romoluSngan ghaH jaghma''e'
> Our enemy is a Romulan.
>
> romoluSngan ghaHbogh jaghma''e' vIHoHta'
> I have killed our enemy, who is a Romulan.
> OR
> I have killed a Romulan, who our enemy is. (Same meaning.)
This is interesting, especially given Nick Nicholas's article in
the current HolQeD. Since the {-'e'} has to be there on the noun
which is subject of the copula, does that also count as focus
marker in the relative clause, making this second translation
invalid? Krankor came up with the idea of using {-'e'} to mark
the head noun of a relative clause when it is ambiguous, as you
take it to be here, so technically, you have marked the subject
as the head noun, though you HAD to because of {ghaH}, but then,
since it is a copula, after all, it doesn't really MATTER which
is the head noun.
I'd just lose the second translation and be happy with the first
one.
> OR
> I have killed our enemy, a Romulan.
>
> This is perhaps both a good and legal way to use apposition in Klingon.
Technically, this is not apposition, but it functions like it.
The meaning is the same, but the grammatical roles are different.
> mogh puqloD 'oHbogh wo'rIv'e' jIH
> I am Worf, Mogh's son.
Given that one presumes you make this statement, you are
apparently capable of using language, so {'oH} is the wrong
pronoun.
> Thoughts?.
>
> Qermaq
charghwI'