tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Mon Mar 15 07:23:18 2004
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
Re: headless {-bogh}?
- From: "QeS lagh" <[email protected]>
- Subject: Re: headless {-bogh}?
- Date: Tue, 16 Mar 2004 01:18:46 +1000
- Bcc:
ghItlhpu' SIvten:
>what is the {-bogh} in the following sentence referring to?
><Dajatlhbogh vIyajlaHbe'
>I find no match for what you just said. KCD
This crops up here from time to time, and it's a valid (and interesting)
question.
This is the only example of a possible truly headless relative clause that
we have. Most believe that it refers to an elided {Doch}, an over-literal
translation, or a combination of the two; I tend to think that an
over-literal translation was the culprit here.
I sometimes wonder, though, whether an explicit pronoun can't itself be the
head (and therefore the above is a usage of a normal agreement marker as a
full pronoun, thus another elision). While I suspect that only nouns are
possible, maybe someone more expert can clarify: Can explicit pronouns be
the heads of relative clauses, or only true nouns?
However, this sentence wasn't even used in the final language lab, IIRC. In
short, headless relatives are a rare beast in Klingon, if they do in fact
exist at all. While they *appear* to be comprehensible to Standard-speakers,
I steer well clear of them due to their rarity (as I said, this is the only
example we have), and I'd generally advise others to do the same.
Savan.
QeS lagh
_________________________________________________________________
Get Extra Storage in 10MB, 25MB, 50MB and 100MB options now! Go to
http://join.msn.com/?pgmarket=en-au&page=hotmail/es2