tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Thu Nov 20 10:02:49 1997
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
Re: "The ship in which I fled"
- From: "Neal Schermerhorn" <[email protected]>
- Subject: Re: "The ship in which I fled"
- Date: Thu, 20 Nov 1997 13:06:26 -0500
ghItlh A.A:
>Excuse me raising this topic yet again. The only book that I have that
seems
>to have information re how to use {-'e'} is TKD, which says only:-
>(1) TKD 3.3.5 says that on a noun it emphasizes that noun.
>(2) TKD 6.3 describes its use with a noun which is the subject of "be".
bIvIt
>(3) TKD said nothing about -'e' in relative clauses, but TH says that
Okrand
>said orally that -'e' can be used to mark the head-word in relative
clauses.
bIvItqa'. A back issue of HolQeD has an article by Krankor re: this very
topic. It was originally Krankor's expression, and MO agreed and in fact has
made it canon.
>TKD when describing relative clauses said that "the head-word can either
>follow or precede the noun", but did not seem to me to say explicitly that
the
>head-word must be subject or object; all nouns in a sentence are somewhere
>before or after the verb. His examples, e.g. (puq qIppu'bogh yaS}, have no
>nouns except subject and object, but to me do not seem to say explicitly
>whether or not the asterisked translations hereinunder are valid:-
>
>{pa'Daq verengan targh HoHpu'bogh loD}
>(A) the man who killed the Ferengi's targ in the room.
>(B) the Ferengi's targ which the man killed in the room.
>(C) **the Ferengi whose targ the man killed in the room.
>(D) **the room in which the man killed the Ferengi's targ.
True - the first two are equal possibilities. (C) is unlikely because the
object of 'kill' is not 'Ferengi' - it's 'targh'. The examples in TKD all
are correct (right?), and only provide options for the head noun preceding
the <-bogh> verb - making it "the targh whom was killed" - or following it -
making it "the man who killed". Referencing the Ferengi is not supported by
examples of actual usage. (BTW, if you had said <verengan Ha'DIbaH> the
situation would be more complex - is this 'the Ferengi's animal' or 'the
Ferengi dog'? Both are canonic translations.) (D) is just impossible - this
is a locative telling where action occured. The room would need to be
mentioned in a more direct way than scenery for the (D) sentence to be
expressed. In other words, as subject or object of the <-bogh>'ed verb as
indicated by examples in TKD.
>With -'e' these would become:-
>(a) {pa'Daq verengan targh HoHpu'bogh loD'e'} - subject
>(b) {pa'Daq verengan targh'e' HoHpu'bogh loD} - object
>(c) **{pa'Daq verengan'e' targh HoHpu'bogh loD} - genitive / owner @
>(d) **{pa'Daq'e' verengan targh HoHpu'bogh loD} - with preposition
>(@ = {smichut} for any Hebrew grammarians out there.}
>Before rule (3) came out, by rule (1) any of (a)(b)(c)(d) would have seemed
>to me to mean any of (A)(B)(C)(D) but emphasizing the noun with the -'e',
>and
>TKD does not seem to me to say explicitly that (c)(d) would have been
>illegal.
Explicitly, my sister once told me that you put an 's' on a word to make a
plural. Then my world was filled with mices, childs, familys, and gooses
galore. What we find in TKD is, by the author's admission, a basic overview
of grammar. We must expect that some rules are as simplistic as my
then-7-year-old sister's sagely advice.
One error you've made is in (d) - there are no prepositions in Klingon. It
doesn't work that way. We use Type 5 suffixes instead. Thus, we can't use
another - like <-'e'> - on the same noun. Thus, MO's extention of the
grammar in this situation makes your
relative-clause-in-reference-to-a-locative (hereafter RCIRTAL) more
impossible.
>By rule (3), (a) to (d) now mean (A) to (D) respectively.
No - (c)(C) is at least arguable, but (d)(D) is impossible.
> I was once told
>off by a pabpo' for using type (c) in a message in Klingon about
blowtorches.
>**{pa'Daq'e' verengan targh HoHpu'bogh loD vISay'qu'nISmoHpu'} would >be
>"I had to sterilize the room in which the man had killed the Ferengi's
targ."
A problem here again is two Type 5's on <pa'>. This actually matches your
type-(d). Try -
<pa'vamDaq verengan targh HoHpu'mo' loD, pa' vISay'qu'nISmoHpu'>
"Because a man killed a Ferengi's targh in this room, I have needed to clean
the room."
This avoids the whole RCIRTAL problem.
Qermaq