tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Tue Jan 23 11:47:06 2001

Back to archive top level

To this year's listing

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

Re: subordinate clauses (was KLBC)

>From: Steven Boozer <[email protected]>
>Date: Mon, 22 Jan 2001 14:52:51 -0600
>--------------------------------------------------------------------------
------

>ghaHbe'wI' wrote:
>: can subordinate clauses introduced by a Type 9 verbal suffix have in
>: its turn a dependent clause? I mean, do these sentences make sense?
>:
>: 1-  jIpaS vIneHbe'mo' juH vIchegh
>: 1a- I go home because I don't want to be late

{jIpaS} is not dependent. It is a sentence unto itself. There is an 
invisible {'e'} between {jIpaS} and {vIneHbe'mo'}. The issue then becomes 
can the second verb of a Sentence-As-Object construction itself be a verb 
for a dependent clause defined by its Type 9 suffix?

>: 2-  jIQoch 'e' vIQIjmo' QeHchoH
>: 2a- He got angry because I explained that I disagree

This is a more explicit example of the same construction. The second verb 
of Sentence As Object is a Type 9 suffixed verb acting as a dependent 
clause to the main verb.

This makes sense if you break it down into separate sentences as TKD 
describes that this construction actually does. There's no prescribed 
reason that {'e'} can't exist in a dependent clause, though all examples 
only use that when it is least obtuse -- that is when the dependent clause 
preceeds the main verb.

>They make perfect sense to me.

Me, too, though I do see the reason for caution.

>: In my opinon, they do. But I haven't found any example of this use in 
canon.

>  bIQapqu'meH tar DaSop 'e' DatIvnIS
>  To really succeed, you must enjoy eating poison. TKW

This is a really interesting example, since what it arguably means is:

"You must enjoy that in order to really succeed, you must eat poison."

Or, if you interpret the {-meH} clause to describe the noun, it means:

"You muse enjoy that you eat the in-order-that-you-succeed poison."

The one bit of evidence that this latter meaning does not apply is that in 
every example that I've seen of a verb with {-meH} modifying a noun, that 
verb has not had a prefix.

>  Ha'DIbaH DaSop 'e' DaHechbe'chugh yIHoHQo'
>  Do not kill an animal unless you intend to eat it. TKW

This is the canon example that justifies this sort of construction. Looking 
at it as two separate sentences with {'e'} representing the earlier 
sentence in the later sentence, this still works. Every sentence is 
complete.

Ha'DIbaH DaSop. Nothing controversial here.

'e' DaHechbe'chugh yIHoHQo'. Again, nothing controversial. This is one 
complete sentence with the special pronoun {'e'} in a dependent clause. 
Because it comes so near the beginning of the sentence, this works. I 
wonder (and somewhat doubt) it would work if the dependent clause FOLLOWED 
the main verb.

>  ja'chuqmeH rojHom neH jaghla'
>  The enemy commander wishes a truce (in order) to confer. TKD

This example is different because here, {ja'chuqmeH} is modifying the noun 
{rojHom}, not the verb {neH}. It is a good example to look at, but it 
doesn't really deal with the issue at hand. Meanwhile, I think it is 
important to remind people that {-meH} verbs can modify nouns. More 
literally, this means, "The enemy commander wants an in-order-to-confer 
truce." If I remember correctly, the text description in TKD accompanying 
this example explains this.

>  yejquv DevwI' moj ghawran 'e' wuqta' cho' 'oDwI' Dapu'bogh
>   janluq pIqarD HoD.
>  Gowron... named leader of the High Council by Captain Jean-Luc
>   Picard, who was acting as Arbiter of Succession. S25

This is a fine example of Okrand violating his most frustrating rule as he 
puts {-ta'} on {wuq}, the second verb of a Sentence As Object. We are told 
in TKD that we are not supposed to do this. I hope we can consider this to 
be an outdated rule, since Okrand has broken it a number of times, and he 
has told us that usage is the key to understanding the language.

Again, if we break this down into two sentences, it becomes:

yejquv DevwI' moj ghawran. No controversy here. This is a normal, complete 
sentence.

'e' wuqta' cho' 'oDwI' Dapu'bogh janluq pIqarD HoD. The main controversy 
here is the name {pIqarD}, which is one of only two names we've been given 
by Okrand that violate the normal rules of Klingon pronunciation. The other 
name is, ironically enough {qIrq}.

Other than that, you just have to recognize that {cho'} is a noun. The 
relative clause is interesting without the {-'e'} marker, since it leaves 
that dependent clause interpretable two ways:

Jean-Luc Pickard, who had acted as succession's arbiter, decided that.

or

Succession's arbitor, who had been acted by Jean-Luc Pickard, decided that.

And the weird thing is, they both work.

>  Heghlu'DI' mobbe'lu'chugh QaQqu' Hegh wanI'
>  Death is an experience best shared. TKW

I would be interested to know whether Okrand considered {Heghlu'DI'} to 
apply to the dependent clause or the main one. Likely, it is a time stamp 
for both actions (being not alone and being very good). Meanwhile, I could 
easily see this going either way:

If one is not alone when one dies -- death's situation is very good.

If one is not alone -- when one dies, death's situation is very good.

Again, both of these work for me.

>Klingon sentences can be quite complex - some of the SkyBox cards for 
example -
>although Okrand tends to avoid them so as not to confuse the reader or 
obscure
>his main grammatical point.

This reminds me of my college roomate's addition to Scott Joplin's 
instructions for playing rags:

Joplin:
Do not play rags fast. They should always be played slowly.
Gladd:
"Besides, it's a lot easier that way."

>--
>Voragh
>Ca'Non Master of the Klingons

I think an even more interesting question is, can {'e'} be used in a 
dependent clause that FOLLOWS the second verb in a Sentence As Object 
construction. We have no examples of this, and I personally think it is a 
bad idea. To be effective, {'e'} needs to immediately follow the setence it 
represents with, at most, an adverbial between them.

I'll make it a mild modification of the TKW example above:

Ha'DIbaH DaSop 'e' DaHechbe'taHvIS yIHoHQo'
Do not kill an animal while you do not intend to eat it.

Grammatically, we can treat this exactly the same as the {-chugh} example 
earlier, except that we know that dependent clauses with {-taHvIS} work 
equally as well following the main verb as preceeding it:

Ha'DIbaH DaSop yIHoHQo' 'e' DaHechbe'taHvIS.

Technically, this should work, but it is really ugly and can lead to even 
uglier examples. I'd avoid this whole direction of technically correct, but 
stylistically ugly sentence because, at heart, we know that {'e'} needs to 
immediately follow the sentence it describes. I suspect this is why Okrand 
often seems to misplace the adverbial in his Sentence As Object examples 
because he doesn't want to put the adverbial or time stamp where they 
really belong, in front of {'e'} because they then separate the {'e'} from 
the previous sentence. The pronoun {'e'} only works for very short-term 
memory of what the last thing is one just said.


SarrIS

Back to archive top level