tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Thu Mar 09 08:28:16 2000
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
RE: KLBC: DaHjaj mu'mey:
- From: Burt Clawson <[email protected]>
- Subject: RE: KLBC: DaHjaj mu'mey:
- Date: Thu, 9 Mar 2000 09:08:07 -0700
ja' charghwI':
> Think of a relative clause as if it were a whole sentence
> unto itself with {-bogh} added to the verb. Either the
> subject or the object of that sentence is the "head noun".
> That head noun's position in the relative clause is normal
> for a normal sentence. It preceeds the verb if it is the
> direct object and it follows the verb if it is the subject.
>
> If there is only one noun in the relative clause, that is
> the head noun. If there are two nouns (both an explicit
> subject and an explicit object), then you can mark the head
> noun with {-'e'}, or you can just let people guess,
> figuring that context will make clear which is the head
> noun.
>
> Now, ignore everything in the relative clause except for
> the head noun. Pretend that the head noun just ate the rest
> of the relative clause. Now, this head noun is a noun in
> the main clause. Typically, it is the subject or the object
> of the main clause, though we know from two canon examples
> that it can also be a locative in the main sentence (though
> I don't recommend it -- it gets ugly and vague very easily
> if you stretch things around like this).
>
> Place this head noun in the main clause exacly like any
> noun would be placed according to its function in the
> sentence. Now, fill in the rest of the relative clause just
> like it was originally.
>
> You may be confusing relative clauses with purpose clauses.
> A verb with {-meH} always preceeds the noun or verb it
> modifies. Relative clauses do not have any such rule.
>
> I hope this helps.
>
HISlaH. bej. tuQaHna'ta' SoH pagh je. DaH QIt mojaq <-bogh>
vIyajchoH 'e' vIHar. muyajmoH 'e' nIDbogh chaH vIquvmoH. jIHvaD Sutuvmo'
Satlho'.
- tuv'el