tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Tue Mar 18 00:57:46 1997
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
Re: KLBC: ghomvaD wa'DIch jabbI'IDwIj
- From: Ivan A Derzhanski <[email protected]>
- Subject: Re: KLBC: ghomvaD wa'DIch jabbI'IDwIj
- Date: Tue, 18 Mar 1997 10:57:51 -0800
- Organization: Institute for Mathematics and Computer Science
- References: <[email protected]>
David Trimboli wrote:
> jatlh qoror:
> > [...] I might try, for "Happy Vertical People Transporter,"
> > "nuvpu' lurgh chongDaq vIHbogh lupwI' Quch," or literally,
> > "a happy transporter of people which moves in a vertical direction."
>
> Well, I don't like your word order here. I think we're using
> "people-transporter" as the starting noun phrase [...].
Yes, {lurgh chongDaq vIHbogh lupwI'} is really way too heavy to be
the second component of a possessive construction. The whole thing
reads as `happy transporter moving in a vertical [people's direction]'.
> lurgh chongDaq vIHbogh nuv lupwI' Quch
> Happy vertical people transporter
That can mean `happy transporter of [people moving in a vertical
direction]' as well as `happy [transporter of people] moving in a
vertical direction]', but in practice that's obviously the same thing.
> One thing that's necessary is that you have to be able to use
> {-Daq} phrases on relative clauses.
~mark replied:
> Ask 'Iwvan or nIchyon. There is no shortage of existing natural
> languages which manage fine with very restricted relative clauses
Yes, but (as nIchyon has observed) as a rule those languages offer
alternative ways of saying the things that the restrictions seem to
make unsayable (say, if they don't allow an indirect object to be
the head noun, they let you make it a subject or direct object).
Klingon doesn't do that.
> (though I think that's restrictions on which noun can be the head-noun,
> not the role of the clause in the matrix. [...])
Exactly. Nor what other constituents the relative clause can have.
In this case {lurgh chong} is totally independent from the matrix.
What I'm wondering about, though, is whether {-Daq} can be used
for `in' as in `move in a direction'. How about {He chong ghoSbogh
nuv lupwI' Quch} `... following a vertical route'? Or simply
{Salbogh 'ej ghIrbogh nuv lupwI' Quch} `... going up and down'?
--'Iwvan
--
"reH Sov yInej 'ej Dap yImuS, <dOstI bA mardom-e dAnA nEkO-st,
jagh val qaq law' jup QIp qaq puS" do^sman-e dAnA beh az nAdAn dOst>
(Sheikh Muslihuddin Abu Muhammad Abdullah Saadi Shirazi)
Ivan A Derzhanski <[email protected], [email protected]>
Dept for Math Lx, Inst for Maths & CompSci, Bulg Acad of Sciences
Home: cplx Iztok bl 91, 1113 Sofia, Bulgaria