tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Sat Nov 22 10:24:23 1997
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
Re: "The ship in which I fled"
- From: "William H. Martin" <[email protected]>
- Subject: Re: "The ship in which I fled"
- Date: Sat, 22 Nov 1997 13:26:29 -0500 (Eastern Standard Time)
- Priority: NORMAL
On Thu, 20 Nov 1997 10:14:37 -0800 (PST) Neal Schermerhorn
<[email protected]> wrote:
> ghItlh A.A:
...
> >{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.
...
> >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 @
Unfortunately, there is a rule in TKD (I'm at home and cannot
find my TKD, so I can't cite the page number) that you cannot
place a Type 5 noun suffix on the first noun in a noun-noun
construction. That makes this expression invalid. I was very
disappointed when I found this out and on my wish list was the
request that Okrand review this rule and consider making this an
exception. When the rule was made, the use of {-'e'} to mark
head nouns did not exist yet. I can see how other Type 5's are
inappropriate and confusing in noun-noun constructions, but this
use would be productive and useful.
But we don't have that exception yet, so this doesn't work.
> >(d) **{pa'Daq'e' verengan targh HoHpu'bogh loD} - with preposition
As Qermaq pointed out, you can't put two Type 5 suffixes on the
same noun.
> >(@ = {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.
Oh, but it does for the reasons given above.
> 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.
Well put.
...
> No - (c)(C) is at least arguable, but (d)(D) is impossible.
C is not arguable, unless Okrand releases us from the "No type 5
suffixes on the first noun of a noun-noun construction" rule.
> > 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.
majQa'.
And just to get absurd about C:
verengan'e' toy'bogh targh HoHbogh loD...
"The Ferengi whom the targ served and whom the man killed..."
It could also be translated:
"The Ferengi who was the targ's master whom the man killed..."
Well, we don't have any canon examples of nested relative
clauses and I don't recommend them as good communication
devices. You quickly get what ~mark refers to as a stack
overflow, but especially if there is only one head noun shared
by them (as is the case here), it should not be too ambiguous. I
consider it to be ugly, but clear. I would also DEFINITELY not
take on the beginners fascination with extreme and start nesting
half a dozen relative clauses. Don't go there.
> Qermaq
charghwI'