tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Fri Dec 29 18:08:58 2006
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
Re: "conjunction"?
- From: "QeS 'utlh" <[email protected]>
- Subject: Re: "conjunction"?
- Date: Sat, 30 Dec 2006 12:06:41 +1000
- Bcc:
ghItlhpu' Paul, ja':
>Relative clauses seem to be able to stand 'on their own' out of context;
>purpose noun clauses seem a little less specific, and IMHO, don't seem to
>stand up on their own.
A purpose noun phrase can appear anywhere in the sentence, as evidenced by
the canon {narghpu' qaSuchmeH 'eb} "the opportunity to visit you has
escaped"; it can behave like most other noun phrases. The problem is merely
that a purpose noun phrase in direct object position is ambiguous (say, in
{qaSuchmeH 'eb vIghaj}, where the sentence could be analysed as /[qaSuchmeH]
'eb vIghaj/ or /[qaSuchmeH 'eb] vIghaj/. But this is a minor problem, and
isn't a barrier to comprehension.
>ja'chuqmeH rojHom neH jaghla'
>The enemy commander wishes a truce to confer.
>/ja'chuqmeH rojHom/ is the purpose noun here, but the /rojHom/ is NOT the
>actual subject of /ja'chuqmeH/...
Of course not. Voragh's example {qaSuchmeH 'eb} "the opportunity for me to
visit you" clearly shows that the head of a noun-modifying {-meH}-clause is
not the same as the subject of that clause. That's part of the grammar of
Klingon; there's nothing wrong with that.
>cha' mu'tlhegh Dararchugh, *rarmeH mu' yI'lo'.
>If you want to connect two sentences, use the word for (him/her/it/they to)
>connect.
>What's the subject of /rarmeH/ in this case?
Personally, I argue that there is *no* explicit subject; it's my humble
opinion that a {-meH}-clause modifying a noun doesn't need to take
pronominal prefixes. I see nothing wrong with {rarmeH mu' yIlo'} "use a
connecting word".
Canon doesn't explicitly say this, but I believe it's implied from the
example Voragh cited from the S33 card: {ngongmeH wa' DujDaq nuHmey
nISbe'bogh So'wI' jomlu'pu'} "a cloaking device which didn't disrupt
weaponry was installed in one experimental ship". The main verb {jomlu'pu'}
"it was installed" shows that the subject of the main clause (and hence,
contextually, the subject of {ngongmeH}) is indefinite. If Klingon grammar
required a pronominal prefix on {ngongmeH} (which would be the zero prefix
in this case), logically the suffix {-lu'} should probably also be present
on that verb - and it isn't.
In short: IMHO, {-meH}-clauses modifying nouns may, but don't need to, take
pronominal prefixes. {-meH}-clauses modifying verbs, on the other hand, must
take pronominal prefixes, hence examples like {Heghlu'meH QaQ jajvam} in
which the expected {-lu'} is present; I couldn't find any example of a
{-meH}-clause modifying a verb that could conceivably be analysed as having
no pronominal prefixes.
QeS 'utlh
tlhIngan Hol yejHaD pabpo' / Grammarian of the Klingon Language Institute
not nItoj Hemey ngo' juppu' ngo' je
(Old roads and old friends will never deceive you)
- Ubykh Hol vIttlhegh
_________________________________________________________________
Advertisement: Fresh jobs daily. Stop waiting for the newspaper. Search Now!
www.seek.com.au
http://a.ninemsn.com.au/b.aspx?URL=http%3A%2F%2Fninemsn%2Eseek%2Ecom%2Eau&_t=757263760&_r=Hotmail_EndText_Dec06&_m=EXT