tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Thu Sep 30 17:30:19 2004
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
Re: (?) interrogative suffix on imperatives?
- From: "QeS lagh" <[email protected]>
- Subject: Re: (?) interrogative suffix on imperatives?
- Date: Fri, 01 Oct 2004 10:28:11 +1000
- Bcc:
ghItlhpu' lay'tel SIvten:
>An example of an imperative with a relative pronoun is the English phrase
>"which see" and its corresponding Latin equivalent "quod vide" (of "q.v."
>fame).
I don't know that the English phrase is entirely relevant; it seems to me to
just be a translation of the Latin, and I'd find the use of "which see" in
normal conversation weird, if not outright impossible. But I must say that
the Latin version is interesting. How applicable is this relative imperative
in Latin?
Although, it does call up the problem that in Latin, it's the free pronoun
(emphasis on "free") that is relative, which means that the verb is free to
take on whatever role it wishes - in essence, treating the relative pronoun
as just another pronoun. In Klingon, it's the verb that's relative, so
whether the verb can be imperative or not might well be conditioned by the
presence of the suffix {-bogh}.
>So it CAN make sense, under the right circumstances.
Agreed. Well spotted.
>And the Klingon equivalent may be >yIleghbogh<.
But would it be understood as having the same meaning as "quod vide"?
Remember, too, that relative clauses (except for a couple of bizarre
examples) require head nouns. I just can't wrap my head around ??{Doch
yIleghbogh} "the thing which see".
QeS lagh
not nItoj Hemey ngo' juppu' qan je
(Old roads and old friends will never deceive you)
- Ubykh Hol vIttlhegh
_________________________________________________________________
FREE* Month of Movies with FOXTEL Digital:
http://adsfac.net/link.asp?cc=FXT002.7542.0