tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Fri Jan 07 17:08:02 2000
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
RE: Which is more important? (KLBC)
- From: "Andeen, Eric" <[email protected]>
- Subject: RE: Which is more important? (KLBC)
- Date: Fri, 7 Jan 2000 18:09:33 -0700
jatlh ghaHbe'wI':
> I was writing a letter for a friend in Klingon, and I wrote:
> "I hope you are fine in the big city that is Madrid", I
> translated it as:
> {*Madrid* 'oHbogh veng tInDaq bIpIv 'e' vItul}.
>
> Then I noted that {veng} was, at the same time, the
> locative of the relative clause and, also, the subject of the
> copulative. Thus, {veng} would take {-'e'} as subject, but as
> locative it's unnecessary and the meaning of the sentence
> doesn't emphasizes that noun.
>
> My question is: Which function is more important, a
> locative or a subject of a copulative?
> Should it be as I wrote or should it be:
> {*Madrid* 'oHbogh veng'e' tInDaq bIpIv 'e' vItul}?
> If this is the right option, can a noun sintagma formed by
> two nouns take two suffixes of the same type, one in every noun?
OK, you lost me a bit here. I am not a linguist, and I don't even play one
on TV. I can tell you how Klingon works, but I can't relate that to the
linguistic terminology you have used here.
As charghwI' pointed out a recently, trying to wedge a type five suffix
*and* a pronoun as a verb into a <-bogh> clause is just too much. You have
to put the <-'e'> on the <veng tIn>, but the <-Daq> goes there as well. This
just can't work. Instead, just say "in the big city of Madrid" - <*Madrid*
veng tInDaq>.
pagh
Beginners' Grammarian
tlhIngan Hol Mailing List FAQ
http://www.bigfoot.com/~dspeers/klingon/faq.htm