tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Sun Jul 06 12:30:21 1997

Back to archive top level

To this year's listing



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

Re: Apposition



ghItlh charghwI':

>Since this is not marked KLBC, though one might argue
>otherwise, I comment.

mIS chu'wI' 'e' bot *KLBC*, 'ach tumISmoH 'e' vIngIl!
 
>> 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.

pab'e' Del charghwI' vISov! I posed this question in part to ask about this 
specific situation. Since I had presumed that Krankor's head noun marking was 
OK'ed, but not ever used, by MO (the above-mentioned article set me straight 
after I posted this message) it seemed that perhaps either noun could be the 
head, and in fact it didn't matter at all which was considered. I'm simply 
stating equivalence of the two nouns, and that conveniently, I feel, makes 
head-noun marking unnecessary.

>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.

My piont exactly. Many have been trying to bend rules to use apposition. 
Perhaps this is the Klingon EQUIVALENT of apposition. (jIjatlhqu', jIjachbe'!)
 
>> 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.

HIja'. 

mogh puqloD ghaHbogh wo'rIv'e' jIH.

I have no problem with the mixed persons in this statement, but others who do 
are free to argue!

qatlho'qa', charghwI'

Qermaq
 


Back to archive top level