tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Sun Nov 30 20:25:53 1997
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
Re: 3 loads of garbage...
ja' ~mark:
>>From: "William H. Martin" <[email protected]>
>>
>>Neal Schermerhorn <[email protected]> wrote:
>>> In this case it's possible. A little confusing, but possible.
>>> <wejlogh bIHaw'meH Dujvo' Dalo'ta'bogh veQ vIteqnIS>
>>
>>Close, but I don't think it works:
>>
>>Three times, from the in-order-that-you-flee ship, ... This is
>>where it falls apart. A noun with {-vo'} on it cannot act as
>>object of a verb. It is a locative. Locatives are locatives, not
>>objects. Since {Dujvo'} is a locative, it can't be object of
>>{Dalo'ta'bogh}, so {Dalo'ta'bogh} immediately becomes a headless
>>relative clause and the sentence turns to mush.
>
>Double-check me on this, because I always tend to get this confused, but
>isn't this the same sort of deal we saw in the canon "meQtaHbogh qachDaq
>Suv qoHpu' neH" (or whatever it was)?
It's *almost* the same thing. The placement of {Dujvo'} before the verb
with {-bogh} makes it bind a whole lot stronger to that verb than to the
main verb of the sentence. In {meQtaHbogh qachDaq Suv qoH neH}, a {-Daq}
on the subject of the relative clause is obviously unrelated to the role
of that subject within the clause.
We don't have a strict explanation of the "right" way to interpret Type 5
noun suffixes in a relative clause; it's possible that {Dujvo' Dalo'ta'bogh}
is a legal "ablative" relative clause that works fine in a larger sentence.
But even if it is grammatical, stylistically I'd avoid it. It's hard to
understand.
-- ghunchu'wI'