tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Tue Jul 25 17:28:21 2000

Back to archive top level

To this year's listing



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

RE: KLBC: relative clauses again (and some un-relative-clause stuff)



jatlh Patrick:

> Hi again. I'm just asking this to make sure I understand it: 
> If you don't plop a -'e' onto a noun in the -bogh clause, 
> it's just assumed the subject of the clause is the head noun, 
> right?

It could be either, but the natural bias generally favors the subject.
Context will often make it obvious as well. And of course if there's only
one explicit noun (subject or object), then that noun is almost certainly
the head noun.

> Also, some more things. Can you use a Type 5 suffix that's 
> not -'e', like -vaD, with a -bogh clause? And which noun 
> does it go on? The head noun, or the last word in the 
> clause? (Or do we not know yet?)

If you're putting it on the subect, then the answer is most likely yes.
There's no danger of mistaking the <-vaD> in <qettaHbogh loDvaD bIQ vInob> -
the <-vaD> cannot be modifying the relative clause since the noun comes
*after* the verb. It must therefore modify the main verb.

If it's the object, then things become more questionable. Consider this
example:

vengDaq Suchbogh matlh vIHoH.

This could mean "I killed Maltz, who was visiting in the city". It could
also mean "I killed it in the city Maltz was visiting". It depends on
whether the <vengDaq> is an "extra" noun modifying the relative clause or
the head noun of the relative clause. This has been discussed now and again
on the list, and I don't know that we clearly know which is correct. My
guess is that both are possible.

> DeS Hutlhbogh loDvaD pu'HIch nob HoD
> - The captain gives a phaser to the guy who's 
> missing an arm.

maj.

> loDvaD Sopbogh targh pu'HIch nob HoD
> - The captain gives a phaser to the guy getting eaten by the targ.
>
> (Would adding -vaD indicate loD as the head noun?)

maj. Again, this could be interpreted differently, and it might be
completely incorrect. I think it's probably legal and fairly obvious,
though.

> Oh, and I've decided to translate another X-Files episode 
> into Klingon. (Groans all around.) Are there any words or 
> phrases I could use to translate the following so I won't 
> have to put too many of my words in <>'s? I'll still 
> probably have to <> a few.

loQ jIHajchoH...

> parasite, host (of a parasite), ammonia, 
Not even going to try.

> crater,
ngengHey chIm?

> geology,
lam QeD, nagh QeD, ghor QeD, yuQ QeD, ...

> body bag, 
lom ngaSwI'

> lymph node,
bISaghlaHbe'

> dog, 
targh is often close enough.

> bubonic plague, 
<bubonic> rop'a'

> larva, stool (as in droppings), 
Qo'

> quarantine, 
This one requires description. Something on the order of <nuvpu'
lungejlu'bogh luSevlu'> - "The infected people are contained."

> (test) sample, 
chovnatlh

> airfield
muDDuj vergh; SaqmeH yotlh; ...

> Also, there's a line, "45 minutes after they evacuated us, 
> they torched the place." I remember hearing (as a response 
> to a question of mine) that "after" could be indicated by 
> -pu' and -DI' (i.e. when I had completed whatever.) But 
> how would I indicate a set amount of time after? qaSpu'DI' 
> loSmaH vagh ('ej?) nunge'pu'DI' qach numeQ? (I'm not sure 
> about the words I used for "evacuate" and "torch (v)", and 
> I probably should use -lu' where I have "they". But 
> that's not really the point of my question.)

matlheDpu'DI', qaS loSmaH vagh tup, 'ej ghIq ...

<ghIq> is a nice new adverbial that basically means "then" (in the temporal
sense). It seems to work well here. There are other ways to say it as well,
of course.

And your choice of <meQ> for "torch" is great. You could also say <meQchu'>
for "completely torch".


pagh
Beginners' Grammarain


Back to archive top level