tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Tue Jan 26 19:32:46 1999
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
Re: qID
mujang charghwI':
>> jIHagh, 'ach chaq qIDvam rurbogh ghItlhvaD Daq pIm wISamnIS.
>
>"I laugh, but perhaps we must find a different place for the
>benefit of the manuscript which resembles this joke."?
>
>moH pab.
vuDlIj neH 'oHba'.
>Okay, fine. I'm a prude. Okrand gave us two rather
>simple examples of relative clauses with only one noun in them
>that had {-Daq} on the noun. I don't like extending that to
>relative clauses with two nouns, one of which has {-vaD} tacked
>on to it.
bIparchugh SoH, jISaHnIS'a' jIH? I don't share your dislike for
this so-called "extension". Like the canon examples, it puts the
syntactic marker on the head noun of the relative clause. There
is ample precedent for relative clauses with two nouns, and there
is no reason I can see to forbid marking one of them with a type
5 suffix besides {-'e'}.
>It can be deciphered with great effort,...
I'm obviously too close to the problem to see it. From my point
of view, there's no more effort in "deciphering" {qIDvam rurbogh
ghItlhvaD} than there is in understanding {meQtaHbogh qachDaq}.
>...but it seems
>like an odd looseness with grammar for one who spent a couple
>years rebelling against the prefix shortcut for indirect
>objects...
jIlotlhbe'; vIyajchu'be' neH. I thought it was a lazy mirroring
of English at first. It merely took me a while to see the usage
in a larger context.
-- ghunchu'wI'