tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Mon Jun 08 07:48:50 1998
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
Re: KLBC: Q on {-meH}
- From: "William H. Martin" <[email protected]>
- Subject: Re: KLBC: Q on {-meH}
- Date: Mon, 8 Jun 1998 10:48:48 -0400 (EDT)
- In-Reply-To: <[email protected]> from "Marc Ruehlaender" at Jun 6, 98 03:21:45 pm
According to Marc Ruehlaender:
>
>
> jIja':
> > >So, could we say that, as <<Qu'>> is the "obvious" subject,
> > >we want to clip it for brevity; but now the {-meH} clause
> > >has nothing to attach to anymore and thus drifts before the
> > >verb?
> > >
> jang ter'eS:
> > Well... I'd rather say we have two different ways to say approximately the
> > same thing (and of the two, I'm tending to prefer the <Qual V-meH Qu'> form).
> > In both cases, it appears that it is permissible, but not required, to drop
> > the actual subject (eg. {Qu'}).
> >
> not sure, I made myself clear... what I was saying is that
>
> a) {qIpmeH Qatlh} is correct because of canon
> b) {Qatlh qIpmeH Qu'} should have the same meaning
> c) obviously *{Qatlh qIpmeH} is not grammatical
> d) to me, ?{qIpmeH Qatlh Qu'}, has to be interpreted as
> the {-meH} clause modifying {Qu'} rather than {Qatlh}
> or else the literal meaning of the phrase is
> "Some task (maybe previously mentioned) is difficult
> and the purpose of that is that something hits something."
I think d) goes a step too far. It may be ugly that {qIpmeH}
modifies {Qatlh}, but if it modified {Qu'}, it needs to appear
between {Qatlh} and {Qu'}. It can't preceed {Qatlh}. Position
is everything in this particular area of Klingon grammar.
> I can accept a) being the result of going from b) to c) and
> "regrammaticalizing" the sentence.
>
> Now the question is, are there canon examples of the form d)?
I seriously doubt it, unless Okrand was writing while he was
REALLY sleepy.
> If so, I must accept that a {-meH} clause modifying a noun
> can be seperated from that noun by a main verb AND such a
> {-meH} clause can modify a non-explicitly-stated noun...
I don't think so.
I think we have to accept that ST5 was riddled with blatant
errors, including the use of {je} between two nouns instead of
after them and several other errors not even explained by the
dialects described in KGT. I don't think we should take this
particular set of canon examples as seriously as the rest.
> Not something I look forward to...
I respect your concern for the clarity of the language. In this
case, I don't recommend that you explore your D option further.
Just write as you think is clear and I think all will likely
agree with you.
> Marc Ruehlaender
> aka HomDoq
> [email protected]
>
charghwI'