tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Tue Jan 27 18:29:55 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)

Qermaq has argued that in a {-bogh} clause, any noun with a type 5
suffix is the head noun, and charghwI' has argued (passionately: reH
nong charghwI') that the only type 5 suffix that makes any sense is
-'e'. I mostly agree with charghwI' on this one.

The problem with all the other type 5 suffices is that they cannot
normally be attached to the subject or object of a sentence, and a
{-bogh} is really just a mini-sentence. The example used <quSDaq Sopbogh
HoD vIlegh> has two candidates for a head noun in the {-bogh} clause:
<quS> and <HoD>. <quS> has the only type 5 suffix in the clause, but
makes a really lousy head noun: it's not the object and it's not the
subject; it's just one of those extraneous nouns with a type 5 suffix.
We've heard from Okrand himself that the head noun of a {-bogh} clause
must either be the subject or the object. There's a lot of debate over
exactly what the deal is with that comment, and I won't get into it, but
at the very least, <quS> cannot be the head noun of this clause. This
makes <HoD> the obvious and only choice. 

Generalizing a bit, -'e' is the ONLY type 5 suffix that can EVER work to
mark the head noun if the noun comes before the verb: if the noun has a
type 5 suffix other than -'e', it cannot be the object. Even if the
rules on type 5 suffices are relaxed a bit in {-bogh} clauses, there is
still no reasonable way to make it the object: how could you tell
whether it is the object or just an extraneous noun. What would it mean
if it were the object anyway? <qachDaq Qaw'bogh nawlogh SoplI' HoD>
could mean, if we accept -Daq on an object "The captain was eating in
the building which the squadron destroyed", turning the whole {-bogh}
clause into a locative. However, I firmly believe that the locative
<qachDaq> would glom on to the nearest verb and act (as it should) like
a locative, and the correct meaning of this sentence would wind up as
"The captain is eating the squadron which destroyed (no object) in the
building". Yummy. Trying to put a type 5 suffix other than -'e' on the
object of a {-bogh} clause doesn't work because there's no way to tell
that the noun isn't just a free floating type 5 suffix noun like it
appears to be.

The canon example in question is <meQtaHbogh qachDaq SuvtaH qoHpu' neH>,
and it illustrates the one possibility for this sort of thing: putting
the type 5 suffix on the *subject*. This is certainly weird, but unless
it is later reversed, it is correct by definition, and I can make it
work in my own brain. The noun with the type 5 suffix here follows the
verb, and if it's part of the clause, it can ONLY be the subject. In
this example, there's not much danger of seeing the <qachDaq> as a
locative in the main clause because we would wind up with a headless
relative clause, which is even weirder. I could also see <targh pupbogh
nuchDaq nISwI' Qeq Qov> "Qov aimed a disruptor at the coward who kicked
the targ."  Even with the object <targh> as a possible head noun, the
<nuch> still binds pretty strongly to the <pup> as the subject. The
sentence makes no sense if <nuch> is not the subject of <pup>: the
{-bogh} clause is just left hanging out there all alone: "the targh
which (elided subject he) kicked ... Qov aimed a disruptor at the
coward." By the above argument, this sentence could NOT be twisted into
making Qov aim a disruptor at the targ... 

In any case, I haven't ever needed to put <-Daq> <-vaD> <-vo'> or
especially <-mo'> on the subject of a bogh clause. The best thing to do
usually is to use two sentences anyway: <targh pup nuch. nuchDaq nISwI'
Qeq Qov.> 

pagh

Back to archive top level