tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Tue May 25 06:26:19 1999
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
RE: SachtaH Holmaj!
- From: [email protected]
- Subject: RE: SachtaH Holmaj!
- Date: Tue, 25 May 1999 09:26:15 -0400
- Importance: Normal
- In-Reply-To: <F2824E0390EBD1118D4C0008C724E4D101242D98@rock-msg-s1.thomtech.com>
peHruSvo':
> In a message dated 5/13/1999 9:47:35 AM US Mountain Standard Time,
> [email protected] writes:
>
> << I think that peHruS is confused by the phrase {jatlhmeH mIwmey} "speaking
> procedures". The plural noun {mIwmey} is not the subject of the dependent
> verb {jatlh} but the plural object of the main verb {qel}. >>
> ===========
> peHruS would like to have been reading mIwmey as only the object of the verb
> qel all along. But, I recall several accusations aimed at me about not
> including a head noun to a dependent clause. So, I indirectly questioned
> what the head noun would be if not mIwmey in a double role.
Oh, I see. (Hadn't read this before sending my previous post.) For clarity, the sentence
we're considering is {jatlhmeH mIwmey qel wa' nav}. As far as the prefixes are concerned,
it doesn't matter whether you consider the syntax to be
[V-meH] O V S
or [V-meH S] V S
The prefixes would be the same. My first reading took it the 2nd way, as {jatlhmeH
mIwmey} as the object. Is there a compelling reason to prefer one structure over the
other? (General question, not directed specifically at peHruS.) I don't have a problem
with a {-meH} clause not having an overt head noun; consider for example TKW p. 5:
TKW p. 5
{SuvmeH 'ej charghmeH bogh tlhInganpu'}
Klingons are born to fight and live to conquer.
The questionable area is when you have a {-bogh} clause with no head noun (a "headless
relative").
> peHruS
-- Holtej 'utlh
tlhIngan Hol Mailing List FAQ
http://www.bigfoot.com/~dspeers/klingon/faq.htm