tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Mon Mar 09 10:00:13 1998
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
Re: [KLBC]: Family
- From: "David Trimboli" <[email protected]>
- Subject: Re: [KLBC]: Family
- Date: Sun, 8 Mar 1998 13:47:51 -0500
From: Qov <[email protected]>
>In {yabwIj vIlo'mo' jIqabbe'} the secondary clause with {-mo'}, {yabwIj
>vIlo'mo'}, comes before the main clause, {jIqabbe'}. In {jIqabbe' yabwIj
>vIlo'mo'}, the secondary clause comes after the main clause. Section 6.2.2
>explains that the order of main and subordinate clauses is variable, and I
>accept a {-mo'} clause as being one of these. charghwI' looks at the rule
>that a noun with the NOUN suffix {-mo'} must go before the clause it
>modifies, and argues that {-mo'} the VERB suffix should be treated the same
>way. I disagree, but I humour him.
It's not quite THAT simple. 6.2.2. says that all verbs with Type 9 suffixes
except for {-'a'} or {-wI'} are verbs in subordinate clauses. {-DI'},
{-chugh}, and {-vIS} are shown as examples of subordinate clauses, and shows
us explicitly that they may occur in either order.
6.2.3. shows that relative clauses are simply subordinate clauses which use
{-bogh} as the Type 9 verb suffix, but their position in the sentence is
restricted by the exact meaning intended.
6.2.4. shows that purpose clauses are subordinate clauses which use {-meH}
as the Type 9 suffix, however, they must always come before the verb or noun
they are modifying.
{-pa'}, {-mo'}, {-jaj}, and {-ghach} are not even considered here, the last
three because THEY HAD NOT EVEN BEEN INVENTED WHEN THIS RULE WAS WRITTEN.
Every single example of {-pa'} that I can find (five, not including KGT or
the last SkyBox, which I haven't finished typing up yet) has it at the
beginning of the sentence. {-pa'} WAS being considered when the rule was
written, so we must assume that it is grammatically correct, by all the
rules we know, to place it in either order. Usage suggests that it may be
usual to place it first, perhaps because it resembles a time stamp, but not
wrong to place it last.
{-mo'}, introduced in the Addendum, may or may not fall under the "either
order" rule. It was not being considered when that rule was written. We
know it may come first, because all of our examples show it doing so. You
can't go wrong by putting it first. However, we have no information except
the lack of evidence that {-mo'} may come last.
Technically speaking, {-jaj} and {-ghach} could "go in either order" too,
but since {-jaj} is put on main verbs and {-ghach} nominalizes the verb,
that doesn't make too much sense.
charghwI' is, I feel, being a little presumptuous in stopping people from
using it last, in that it isn't really a verifiable rule, but there is a
certain logic to it. {-mo'}, as a noun suffix, will always come first. It
is possible, though not necessary, that {-mo'} the verb suffix is related to
this noun suffix, and behaves in the same way: that is always comes first.
To make a sentence that everyone can accept, put the {-mo'} verb first, not
last. There is no ambiguity in this. Future information may shed some more
light on this.
SuStel
Stardate 98184.2