tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Wed Mar 06 08:32:50 2002
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
RE: -bogh
> * From: [email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>
>ghunchu'wI',
>
> On page 63 of TKD it says compare the following:
>
> qIppu'bogh yaS - officer who hit him
>
> This I understand. It's the translation of the next one that has me
> stumped...
>
> yaS qIppu'bogh - officer whom he hit
>
> This makes it sound like it's still the officer we're talking about.
The Officer is still in there but is now the object of the sentence as in
the one being hit rather than the one doing the hitting. The Officer takes
the lead in the English translation but I would imagine if the "he" was
specified the sentence would also means "He who hit the Officer" unless
something else was added for context.
> But what if I was talking about the "he" who hit the officer?
> What if I
> wanted to say, "He who hit the officer fled?"
>
> Haw'pu' yaS qIppu'bogh.
Personally I would introduce "then" to show order of action and said:
yaS qIppu'bogh ghIq Haw'pu'
I believe the Subject should be considered the same in both yaS qIppu'bogh
and Haw'pu' so that would mean the tlhIngan would be clear that it was the
"He" who hit the officer and he that fled.. I think the problem only arises
in the way it is translated into English .
We know that the translation "The Officer whom he hit" is fine because MO
says it is. But Hol has to be translated in context. Once you add the "he
fled" part I believe the natural translation should be "He who hit the
officer then fled". But I think you are right and you would need the
subject of fled specified as discussed further below.
> But then if I wanted to say, "The officer whom he hit fled",
> it would be
> the same sentence?
>
> Haw'pu' yaS qIppu'bogh.
Because the subject changes you would need to specify the change and say:
yaS qIppu'bogh ghIq Haw'pu' yaS
>
> Does adding a pronoun change things?
>
> Haw'pu' yaS qIppu'bogh ghaH.
I would of thought so but I'm not certain... in my version
yaS qIppu'bogh ghaH ghIq Haw'pu' would not make sense in English if yaS was
the head noun but would if ghaH was
i.e. yaS qIppu'bogh ghaH ghIq Haw'pu'
makes sense as "He who hit the officer then fled"
but not as: "The Officer whom he hit then he fled"
Whereas
yaS qIppu'bogh ghaH ghIq Haw'pu' yaS
makes sense as The "Officer whom he hit fled"
but nonsense as "He who hit the Officer then the Officer fled".
> Hmmmm....maybe I just answered my own question. Tell me if I'm
> understanding right. The reason that this sentence *Haw'pu' yaS
> qIppu'bogh* is translated as *The officer whom he hit fled*
> is because
> *yaS* is the only explicit noun while *ghaH* is merely implied.
> However, if the implied *ghaH* is added to the sentence then
> it becomes
> the head noun. Implied nouns in Klingon don't count?
>
> But it goes on to say (pg 63 - 64), "In the second phrase,
> yaS is the
> object". But it doesn't matter if it's the object or not
> because *yaS*
> is the head noun so that's who we're talking about? Is that right?
I think so as there is no other specified... When you add ghaH you then have
two specified nouns so as ghaH is the subject I would've leant towards that
taking precedence but I can't see any canon as to why... Perhaps -'e' would
clarify things when there are two nouns?
> QInteS
>
>