tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Tue Aug 27 14:06:49 2002

Back to archive top level

To this year's listing



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

Re: grammer question



DOOM_er:
> >> Can I say /lIvan tugh Heghbogh loDpu'/ or is that grammatically
> >> incorrect?  In other words, can the /tugh/ be there?

Voragh:
> > Unfortunately, no.  Klingon syntax is fairly rigid.  Adverbials go before
> > the entire OVS string, even if it contains a relative clause.

SuStel:
>Err . . . he did put /tugh/ before the entire OVS string -- the OVS of
>/Heghbogh loDpu'/.
>
>His noun phrase is /tugh Heghbogh loDpu'/: "men who will soon die."  His
>whole sentence is
>
>   lIvan [tugh Heghbogh loDpu'].
>   [Men who will soon die] salute you.
>
>I see no problem with this.  We have seen plenty of evidence that Klingon
>treats verbs and sentences as basically the same thing.

Basically the same thing, perhaps; but not necessarily exactly the same 
thing.

I wondered about this myself.  I like the idea of using {tugh} like this, 
but on examining Okrand's examples, I'm not sure we can do it.  Is there 
something in TKD about the placement of adverbials WRT phrases vs. 
sentences?  (I don't have my copy with me at the moment.)

Although we have many, many examples of relative {-bogh} clauses, I can 
find none with an imbedded adverbial.  If there is an adverbial somewhere 
in the sentence, it modifies the main verb, not the verb in the relative 
clause.  I found only four examples:

    reH boch qutluch lo'lu'bogh
    The used kut'luch is always shiny. TKW

{reH} modifies {boch}, not {lo'}.

    yIntaHbogh qagh jablu'DI' reH nIvqu' qagh
    Gagh is always best when served live. TKW

{reH} modifies {nIv}, not {yIn}.

    'avwI' nejDI' narghta'bogh qama' reH 'avwI' Sambej
    When an escaped prisoner looks for a guard, he always finds one. TKW

{reH} modifies {Sam}, not {nargh}.

    'ang'eghQo' quv Hutlhbogh jagh neH ghobtaHvIS ghaH
    Only an enemy without honor refuses to show himself in battle. TKW

Here {neH} does appear in the relative clause acting as the subject of 
{'ang}, but it's actually modifying the noun {jagh}, not the verb {Hutlh}, 
so I'm not sure how relevant this example is.

I'm a little leery about embedding an adverbial in a relative clause used 
as a subject.  To see why, let's use one of the secrecy proverbs:

    Hov ghajbe'bogh ram rur pegh ghajbe'bogh jaj.
    A day without secrets is like a night without stars.  PK

I think we all agree that you could modify this to:

1. reH Hov ghajbe'bogh ram rur pegh ghajbe'bogh jaj.
    A day without secrets is ALWAYS like a night without stars.

But, can you say:

2. ? Hov ghajbe'bogh ram rur reH pegh ghajbe'bogh jaj.
      A day ALWAYS without secrets is like a night without stars.

or:

3. ? reH Hov ghajbe'bogh ram rur pegh ghajbe'bogh jaj.
      A day without secrets is like a night ALWAYS without stars.

or even:

4. ? reH Hov ghajbe'bogh ram rur reH pegh ghajbe'bogh jaj.
      A day ALWAYS without secrets is like a night ALWAYS without stars.

Granted, 2 is easy to understand.  But if you can say 3 or even 4, how do 
you disambiguate them from 1?  Add {-taH} to the relevant verb perhaps?  E.g.:

5. ? reH Hov ghajbe'bogh ram rurtaH pegh ghajbe'bogh jaj.

6. ? reH Hov ghajbe'taHbogh ram rur pegh ghajbe'bogh jaj.

If you can find a counter example with an embedded adverbial in relative 
clause serving as the subject of a sentence, I'd like to see it as I do 
like having the option of saying:

    lIvan tugh Heghbogh loDpu'.
    Men who will soon die salute you.

vs.

    tugh lIvan Heghbogh loDpu'.
    Men who will die will salute you soon.



-- 
Voragh
Ca'Non Master of the Klingons



Back to archive top level