tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Tue Feb 23 13:25:34 1999

Back to archive top level

To this year's listing

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]

Re: -bogh and -ghach

In a message dated 2/23/99 1:43:42 PM Eastern Standard Time, writes:

<< > I have two questions about -bogh and -ghach.
 > 1. How does Soj vutlu'pu'bogh become the food which has been cooked?  The
 > subject and object aspect of -bogh is what is confusing me, and not
 > necessarily just this example.
 The head noun of {-bogh} can be either that verb's subject or 
 object. Most relative clauses only have an explicit subject OR 
 an explicit object, so you can assume that noun is the head 
 noun. When a relative clause has both an explicit subject AND an 
 explicit object, you can just leave it ambiguous, since Okrand 
 certainly has given us examples where that was the case, or you 
 can point out which noun is the head noun by adding the 
 suffix {-'e'} to it.
 In {Soj vutlu'pu'bogh}, there is only one noun there. {Soj} has 
 to be the head noun of the clause. It is the object of {vut}. 
 So, it has to be "food which is cooked" or "food which one has 
 cooked" or something like that, but the point is, it is the head 
 noun, and it is the object.
 What do we mean by "head noun"?
 Well, if you dropped the rest of the clause and just used that 
 head noun alone, the rest of the sentence would make sense. So, 
 if we had a more complete example:
 Soj vutlu'pu'bogh vIneH.
 We could drop the rest of the relative clause and get:
 Soj vIneH.
 The rest of the clause just gives a more specific definition of 
 WHICH food I want. That's one of the two functions of a relative 
 clause. In English, we have two types. The exclusive relative 
 clause performs this function of defining which noun you are 
 talking about. "I saw the child who hit the captain." Which 
 child? The one who hit the captain.
 There's also the parenthetical relative clause. That just adds 
 some information about the noun, but it is not really important 
 in identifying the noun. "I saw the child, who hit the captain." 
 That simple comma in English is supposed to imply that I saw the 
 kid you were talking about, and you know what? That SAME kid hit 
 the captain. I'm not identifying the child. I'm just giving 
 parenthetical information about the child.
 In "proper" English, if the noun in question is neuter, we also 
 make a difference by using "which" or "that".
 I saw the robot that hit the captain. (exclusive)
 I saw the robot, which hit the captain. (parenthetical)
 Does this help? >>

Somewhat.  What would happen if there are both an object and a subject on a
-bogh verb?  How should that be translated into a form I could easily

And -ghach...Should I take it as "the action of doing something"?  Or
something else?


Back to archive top level