tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Wed Jun 24 15:04:46 1998
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
Re: List of Klingon fauna
- From: "David Trimboli" <[email protected]>
- Subject: Re: List of Klingon fauna
- Date: Tue, 23 Jun 1998 17:36:10 -0400
From: [email protected] <[email protected]>
>In a message dated 98-06-18 17:34:17 EDT, SuStel writes:
>
><< What headless clauses? There aren't even any relative clauses in these
> sentences. What are you referring to?
> >>
>
>mu'tlhegh nach ghajnIS mojaq {-bogh} neH ngaSbogh mu'tlhegh 'ay'mey chaq
'e'
>DaHar. 'ach jIQoch. nach ghajnIS je mojaq {-meH} mojaq {-chugh} mojaq
{-pa'}
>mojaq {-mo'} mojaq {-DI'} je 'e' vIHar.
You think all of those use head nouns ({nach} is a literal translation, of
course, but I doubt it's appropriate in Klingon)? Certainly, they have
subjects and objects, but there's no sense in calling any of them "head
nouns." The head noun is the noun which is being modified by the verbal
subordinate clause. In something like {yaS qIpchugh puq, yaS 'oy'moH puq},
there is no head noun in the subordinate clause. Neither {yaS} nor {puq}
are a noun being modified; they are simply the subject and object of the
clause.
On the other hand, {-bogh} clauses are always linked to nouns, sort of
trailing off of them. In those, it's the *noun* which is of prime
importance in the sentence as a whole, not the verb.
The term "head noun" is only appropriate with {-bogh} clauses.
SuStel
Stardate 98477.5