tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Sun Jun 08 20:16:35 1997
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
Re: Object wIjatlhlaH'a'
- From: "William H. Martin" <[email protected]>
- Subject: Re: Object wIjatlhlaH'a'
- Date: Sun, 8 Jun 1997 23:16:28 -0400 ()
- Priority: NORMAL
On Sun, 8 Jun 1997 00:34:10 -0700 (PDT) [email protected]
wrote:
> jatlh loD: qagh vISop vIneHbej mu'mey may'morghvam
> wIlo'laH net
> Sov
> qagh vISop vIneH bej jatlh loD mu'tlhegh mu'mey may'morghvam
> wIlo'laH'a'
>
> It is not the same idea, but {qar'a'} can appear almost anywhere in a
> question.
It forms a question by its addition to the end of a statement.
Period. I cannot understand your suggestion.
> Relative clauses need not be in a set position in a sentence.
Relative clauses must appear in the position appropriate for the
function of the head noun in that outer sentence. There is no
other proper place for a relative clause.
> In
> Mandarin the dependent clause always precedes the main clause.
We have canon for the placement of most dependant clauses either
at the beginning or end of sentences, particularly those created
with {-taHvIS}, {-DI'}, {-pa'} or {-chugh} though I have my
doubts about {-mo'}. I think {-mo'} based dependant clauses
really belong at the beginning of sentences, just like nouns
with {-mo'}, and there are no canon examples I can remember of
{-mo'} at the end of a sentence. Phrases with {-meH} also belong
at the beginning of a sentence, unless they are placed to modify
the subject (since verbs with {-meH} can modify nouns).
> Okay,
> tlhIngan Hol does not follow the rules of ANY Terran language, let alone
> Mandarin. Still, I get the feeling we can put verbs of speaking after that
> "sentence" which is spoken, thus identifying the "sentence" as the Object of
> the verb of speaking.
Verbs of speaking can either preceed or follow the direct quote,
but despite a relatively substantial quantity of canon examples
of quotation, there are no examples showing the quotation as the
object of the verb of speech, even though Okrand had several
clear opportunities to show that if that were his intent. The
examples we have seem to go out of their way to avoid this.
> Just a feeling? Or will it prove to be true?
So far, the substantial evidence is that it is not true. Just
look at the Klingon jokes on Power Klingon. Look in TKD. There
are a couple instances which are ambiguous because of the null
prefix, but whenever an example would have clearly shown the
object to be the quotation, it is clearly the person addressed
instead.
> peHruS
charghwI'