tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Mon Sep 22 11:08:33 1997
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
relative clause markers (was Re: Ha'DIbaHmey)
- From: "William H. Martin" <[email protected]>
- Subject: relative clause markers (was Re: Ha'DIbaHmey)
- Date: Mon, 22 Sep 1997 14:09:56 -0400 ()
- Priority: NORMAL
On Fri, 19 Sep 1997 07:10:35 -0700 (PDT) Alan Anderson
<[email protected]> wrote:
> ja' peHruS mIS:
> >I have been told repeatedly that we cannot use {nuq} ro any other Klingon
> >question word as a relative clause marker. Thus, we might say {Doch
> >vIghajbogh....} but not the abovementioned {...nuq vIghajbogh...}.
>
> The warnings are against using question words *as* relative clause
> markers. You seem to have misunderstood them as prohibiting the use
> of question words *with* relative clauses. {nuq vIghajbogh} seems to
> be a grammatically correct phrase; the suffix {-bogh} on the verb is
> what makes it a relative clause.
I'm not saying this can't work, but it seems pretty damned
awkward. I tend to think question words belong to the main
clause of a sentence. Otherwise, you are embedding an
interogatory clause in a statement, which just doesn't feel
right. I tend to believe that questions, like commands, are not
subordinate clauses (reserving a place for extremely exceptional
circumstances).
> Whether it says what the author intends is another matter entirely.
> For example, {nuq vIghajbogh vISovbe'} means something like "What
> don't I know which is in my possession?" {nuq} is still a questioning
> pronoun, not a relative one.
To me, that reads: "I don't know WHAT which I have?" Perhaps it
is a response to the statement, "You don't know what you've
got," requesting more detail. It still seems rather peculiar.
In that setting, I'd say, {yIQIj!} instead.
> -- ghunchu'wI'
charghwI'