tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Sat Oct 18 23:15:29 1997
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
Re: mu'tlheghmey Qatlh
- From: Qov <[email protected]>
- Subject: Re: mu'tlheghmey Qatlh
- Date: Sat, 18 Oct 1997 23:15:11 -0700
At 08:36 97-10-17 -0700, charghwI' wrote:
Qov:
>> What does {Qe' ngo'Daq Sopbogh loDpu'} mean?
>> "in the old restaurant that the men were eating"
>> "the old restaurant where the men were eating"
>> "the men who were eating in the old restaurant"
>>
>> I'm trying to tell you that marking the location of a relative
>> clause with {-Daq} in this manner is suspect. You think you are
>> saying "the men who were eating in the old restaurant" but you are
>> most probably attributing the enjoyment to the restaurant, if you
>> are not saying gibberish.
charghwI'
> I disagree. I thought Okrand once said that the head noun of a
> relative clause had to be subject or object of the {-bogh}ed
> verb.
May well be. I would have been alone with my 1st edition TKD at that
point, blissfully ignorant of any controversy. The thing that *I*
remember is a Qanqor artice in which he speculated that any type 5
suffix could flag a head noun, not just {-'e'}. Even though I
disagreed with Qanqor as I read it, that was what tipped the balance
to the decision I made there. muSIghchu'be'taH Qanqor: rut Huj
qechmeyDaj 'ach ghaH vIQoy. loS HolQeD DIS vIje'nIS. qaStaHvIS DIS
vagh vIboSchoH.
Qov:
>> Without {-lI'} or {-taH} (I couldn't tell which was appropriate
>> from the English) you get the men who ate, or who eat, or who
>> will eat, and lose the idea that eating as an ongoing process
>> during the other action of the sentence.
>
> qay'be'. I think it is slightly better with {-lI'}, but I don't
> see it as worthy of great focus. It works without it as well.
> The continuity is not a focal point of the meaning.
Every BG seems to have his or her pet rant. Yours is placement of
subordinate clauses. Mine looks like it's going to be aspect
suffixes. I'm going to call every one I see. :)
> That's why we can't say "the ship in which I fled". We
> can't say, "the old restaurant in which the men ate" for the
> same reason. The only thing this could mean is "the men who ate
> in the old restaurant."\
Point taken. While I was writing that response -- and you can see
from the fact that I left off in the middle then sent it accidentally
that it took me a bit of deliberation -- I started to use {Qe'Daq
Sopbogh loD} but decided that while when I was *speaking* I had no
problem with it, it looked weird written down. I picked a side.
You've convinced me to leave it.
> I think Qermaq accomplished saying exactly what he meant to say.
maj. If it hadn't been my assigned task to find any problems with
it, I expect I wouldn't have blinked.
> I do think [{meQtaHbogh qachDaq}] is a messy
> example. I wish Okrand would have either not written it, or
> written more to make this clearer. The example directly opposes
> what he has said about relative clauses.
reH ghIH *Okrand* chovnatlhmey. naDev jIHtaHbogh
vISovbe'.
>> I wouldn't say {Qe'Daq SoplI'bogh loDpu'} unless I was talking
>> about the restaurant.
>
> And I wouldn't say it unless I was talking about the men.
> Perhaps we would both be satisfied with {Qe'Daq SoplI'bogh
> loDpu''e'}?
jIH muyonmoH 'uQ tIn matay'taHvIS jIH loDnalwI' je.
> Sorry to come across in opposition here. I'm massively
> impressed with the BG work so far. In this instance, I simply
> like that which bothers you.
*BG* qej Qorghbogh nuvpu''e' vItlho'. jInIDba'. Qaghna'meywIj
bomaqDI' tuboQ. qechmeywIj lughHa'mo' Suja'chuq Hoch boQaH.
jutlhochmeH neH jutlhochlaw'taHchugh juboHmoH. chaq DoSHom ghaH
BG'e'. chaq DoSHom Da neH BG jeQHa'.
Qov [email protected]
Beginners' Grammarian