tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Sun Jan 25 14:08:58 1998
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
Re: Locatives and {-bogh} (was Re: KLBC Poetry)
- From: "William H. Martin" <[email protected]>
- Subject: Re: Locatives and {-bogh} (was Re: KLBC Poetry)
- Date: Sun, 25 Jan 1998 17:09:56 -0500 (Eastern Standard Time)
- Priority: NORMAL
On Fri, 23 Jan 1998 15:51:08 -0800 (PST) Qermaq
<[email protected]> wrote:
> ghItlh ter'eS:
>
> >But I'd forgotten the {meQtaHbogh...} example. It looks to me like
> >this sentence is trying to use a noun in two different modes at once:
> >{meQtaHbogh (qach/qachDaq) Suv}, where the noun is the subject of the
> >inner verb but locative in relation to the outer verb. How is this
> possible?
>
> First - how it is possible? MO says so. Why it is possible is the
> question...
>
> Apparently, adding <-Daq> to a head noun (1) marks it just like <-'e'> does
> (2) makes the noun phrase represented by the <-bogh> expression into a
> locative. I have long suspected it would be logical to mark head nouns with
> "any" Type 5. (Without any proof whatsoever. What else is new?)
This is not the first time this idea was presented. I'll assure
you that sentences you build with this kind of technique will
often be quite obtuse. Building obtuse sentence is not one of my
goals in using this language. If it is yours, go ahead. I'll
likely read as far as I can comfortably understand and delete
the rest. Time is so short.
> So, if I'm right, we can say -
>
> muparbogh ghotpu'vaD yIHmey vInob
> I give tribbles to people who hate me.
>
> jortaHbogh yuQvo' DI vIwoH
> I pick up debris from the planet which is exploding.
Sounds hazardous.
> ghewmeymo' vISoppu'bogh 'oy'taH burghwIj.
> My stomach hurts due to the bugs I ate.
This is thick enough that it would be easier to read than hear
and understand. In particular, it nearly falls into the real
problem with this kind of construction, where {ghewmeymo'} might
be applying to the relative clause or to the main clause. In
this case, it is fairly simple, but keep it up and you'll make
up an example that reeks.
> Qe'Daq vIje'qangbogh qagh wISoplaH.
> We can eat qagh in the restaurant which I am willing to buy.
This is getting uglier, though after a double-take, it is not
ambiguous.
> Not that these sentences are particularly inspired, and not that other ways
> of saying aren't possible - for the third one, I'd rather say <ghewmey
> vISoppu'mo', ...>, as an example. But if canon is to be observed, these
> MIGHT be legal...
jISaHbe. Qapchu'be'. vIpoQbe'.
> Or else it's a MO boo-boo. In which case the sentences are wrong. But even
> if this is acceptable, it still does not solve the "ship in which I fled"
> problem.
>
> Do'Ha'.
>
> Qermaq
charghwI'