tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Sun Feb 01 02:01:02 1998

Back to archive top level

To this year's listing

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]

Re: Locatives and {-bogh} (was Re: KLBC Poetry)

In a message dated 98-01-31 22:19:41 EST, Qov writes:

<< I'm quite happy with the existence of a construction that allows a locative
 only on the subject of a relative clause (RC) if the RC is to be the object
 of another clause.  There are things in English that only work because the
 preceding clause happens to end with the word you need to chain the next
 clause off of.  I notice this in the MU* environment where you forever write
 sentences that start with your characters name, because that's the way the
 code works. >>

----peHruS first post on this matter------
That's right.  Believe it or not, I have not joined in on this one.  Until
now.

First, I am just as happy with the locative where it has been all along, at
the beginning of the sentence.  Without regard as to onto which clause it
places the action of the verb, that is.  Then I got to thinking about how
TKD's addendum MO moved the adverb to attach it to the clause which needed
modification of its verb.  Now, I'm not arguing that the locative moves, too.
Obviously, we have not seen MO move the locative to just before another
clause.  We haven't seen this happen, have we?

I am saying:  Since the movement of the adverb was introduced later, could we
encounter the movement of the locative at a future date?  If so, I await such
an event from MO.

Finally, MO has pointed out that Klingon sometimes/often/occasionaly needs
reduplication of a noun:  (TKD 61)  "When a noun indicates subject and/or
object, there are some options in Klingon.  In its fullest form, a Klingon
sentence repeats the noun:  yaS legh puq 'ej yaS qIp puq" and (TKD 65) "jagh
luHoHmeH jagh lunejtaH."  Of course, further reading reveals that we may use
pronouns to replace some of the nouns; we may even discard duplicate nouns
when the meaning is clear.

peHruS

Back to archive top level