tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Tue Jun 17 15:49:31 1997
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
Re: Adjectives WAS RE: KBLS: Storm
According to Alan Anderson:
>
> Neal Schermerhorn writes:
...
> >We could also use this verb in a relative clause. jenbogh loD = man who is
> >tall. The meaning is not really changed - perhaps the tallness of the man is
> >less prominent in the second example, but we are really saying the same thing
> >in two ways.
>
> They're not exactly the same thing, though. Using {-bogh} implies that you
> are restricting the set of things you are talking about. Using a verb in an
> adjectival sense implies that you are describing the thing you are talking
> about.
This is not quite certain. In English, there are two different
kinds of relative clauses. One is restrictive and the other is
parenthetical. In formal English, we use "which" and a comma to
set off a parenthetical relative clause, while we use "that"
and no comma for a restrictive relative clause. In informal
English, we often use "which" for both cases.
As example, let's say there is a switch on your right and
nowhere else, but I want to make sure you find it, so I say,
"Hit the switch, which is on your right."
Now, if there were switches to both sides of you, I'd point you
to the correct one by saying, "Hit the switch that is on your
right." Meanwhile, an extremely common error in English (like
using "who" as an object instead of "whom") would be in this
latter case to say, "Hit the switch which is on your right."
In TKD there are no examples of parenthetical relative clauses.
Okrand does not tell us that these do not exist in Klingon, nor
does he tell us that they DO exist in Klingon. If they do
exist, he offers no alternative grammar for them. I'm not ready
to say that the lack of canon examples of parenthetical
relative clauses is not simply an accident. I suspect it is
something Okrand simply has not thought about yet. I also
suspect if he did think about it, he'd probably just slide them
in alongside exclusive relative clauses.
> Why not? Easy -- because Okrand didn't translate "running man" as {loD qet}.
> We infer from this that verbs like {qet} and {moD} and {Qam} and {Hob} aren't
> able to modify nouns in an adjectival sense.
Thanks. I had that same example.
> >Now, I am not saying that all verbs can be used adjectivally. But there are
> >surely some that can be which are not so clearly marked. What guidelines
> >would
> >you set down for correct usage of verbs adjectivally? (That is, besides TKD's
> >"state or quality" (p. 49) direction, which is quite open to interpretation,
> >as I hope I have shown.)
>
> I think it's somewhat less open to interpretation than you imply.
I strongly second that vote. I see no argument of value here.
> -- ghunchu'wI'
charghwI'