tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Wed Sep 08 12:29:27 2004

Back to archive top level

To this year's listing

• Index by Date
• Index by Thread
• Index by Author

Re: embedded clause as head of relative clause

Steven Boozer ([email protected])

• From: Steven Boozer <[email protected]>
• Subject: Re: embedded clause as head of relative clause
• Date: Wed, 08 Sep 2004 14:29:11 -0500
• In-reply-to: <[email protected] >

"clayton.rodrigo" wrote:

>Hegh SuvwI'vetlh 'e' Dalegh. Hegh 'e' vISov jIH je.

"You saw that warrior die. I also know that he died."

>Is the following sentence allowed?
>
>Hegh SuvwI'vetlh 'e' Daleghbogh vISov.

What is this supposed to mean?  An Okrand-style analysis of the sentence 
would be:

   "That warrior died.  I know that which you saw."

What you're asking is whether the pronoun {'e'} can be the object of a 
relative clause; IOW, can {'e'} be the object of two verbs 
simultaneously.  I don't think so.

First, the canon.  Although it's not the same construction, we have only 
one example of {'e'} and {-bogh} used in a sentence:

   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

For your sentence, the easiest way is to simply move the {'e'}:

   Hegh SuvwI'vetlh Daleghbogh 'e' vISov.
   I know that that warrior whom you saw died.
   (lit. "That warrior whom you saw died.  I know that.")

A second, more controversial, way is to add another {'e'} and drop the {-bogh}:

   Hegh SuvwI'vetlh 'e' Dalegh 'e' vISov.
   I know that you saw that warrior die.
   (lit. "That warrior died. You saw that. I know that.")

Can we use two {'e'}s in one sentence; IOW, can one SAO be the object of 
another?  We don't know.  Okrand has never used this construction AFAIK, 
but he has translated similar English ideas in two different ways:

1) by repeating the {'e'} clause:

   bISuv 'e' yIwIv; bISutlh 'e' yIwIvQo'
   Choose to fight, not negotiate.  TKW
   (lit. "Choose to fight; do not choose to negotiate.")

2) by eliding one of the {'e'} clauses:

   juDev 'ej Dujvam ra'wI' DagheS 'e' vItlhob
   I ask you to lead us as commander of this ship.
   I request that you lead us and that you assume the duties of commander
   of this ship. KGT

This may be understood as an abbreviated version of:

   juDev ['e' vItlhob] 'ej Dujvam ra'wI' DagheS 'e' vItlhob
   ("[I request that] you lead us and I request that you assume the
     duties of commander of this ship.")

This method wouldn't work for your sentence because {'e' Dalegh} "you see 
that" and {'e' vISov} "I know that" have different subjects.



-- 
Voragh
Ca'Non Master of the Klingons 

• Prev by Date: embedded clause as head of relative clause
• Next by Date: Re: embedded clause as head of relative clause
• Previous by thread: embedded clause as head of relative clause
• Next by thread: Re: embedded clause as head of relative clause
• Index(es):
  • Date
  • Thread
  • Author

Back to archive top level