tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Mon May 08 14:07:55 2006
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
Re: Questions in tlhIngan syntax (I)
Jesse Morales wrote:
>At 6.2.5 in the Klingon dictionary it states "They ['e' and net] are used
>primarily, though not exclusively, with verbs of thinking and observation
>(such as know and see)."
>
>I am a little confused as to why this admissive rule does not apply to the
>third example under section 6.2.3
>
> "qIppu'bogh yas vIlegh" I see the officer who hit him/her.
>
>In this example I see a complex sentence consisting of actually two Klingon
>sentences.
Not quite. It has two clauses, not two complete sentences.
> "qIppu'bogh yas" -as object
This is only a clause: "the officer who (has) hit him/her"
> "vIlegh" -as a verb/subject construction
This is a complete, if brief, sentence: "I see him/her."
>If this is so, why is not the object sentence connected to "vIlegh" by the
>pronoun 'e'? I'm sure I am wrong on more then one of these points.
You're confusing relative ({-bogh}) clauses with "sentence as object" (SAO:
{'e'}). If it helps, think of a relative clause as a participle modifying
a noun:
{qIpbogh yaS}
the officer who hit, the hitting officer
{muqIpbogh yaS}
the officer who hit me, the hitting-me officer
{qIppu'bogh yaS}
the officer who has hit (him/her), the has-hit-(him/her) officer
(Since Klingon has no grammatical tense, these participles can be
translated by present, past or future participles as appropriate. I'll use
the past tense from now on.)
The example from TKD can be broken down into
yaS vIlegh
I saw the officer.
qIppu'bogh yaS vIlegh
I saw the officer who-hit-him/her. I saw the hitting-him/her officer.
SAOs do not modify nouns per se; they are complete sentences which are
themselves the object of another sentence linked with {'e'} or {net}. A
slight change gives you:
qIppu' yaS 'e' vIlegh
I saw the officer hit him/her.
which is actually a combination of two sentences:
qIppu' yaS. 'e' vIlegh
The officer (has) hit him/her. I saw that.
Another way to think of it with these sentences is to see the SAO as a
statement of fact ("I saw the officer hit him/her") and the relative clause
as a follow-on comment or description about the officer. E.g.:
qIppu' yaS 'e' vIlegh
I saw the officer hit him/her.
("The officer has hit him/her. I saw that."
qIppu'bogh yaS vIlegh
I saw the officer who-has-hit-him/her.
You can make the relative clause - or noun plus "participle" - the subject
of another sentence:
mulegh qIppu'bogh yaS
The officer who hit him/her saw me.
("The officer who-has-hit-him/her saw-me.")
mulegh qama' qIppu'bogh yaS
The officer who hit the prisoner saw me.
("The officer who-has-hit the prisoner saw-me.")
tera'ngan ghaH qIppu'bogh yaS'e'
The officer who hit him/her is Terran.
("The officer who-has-hit-him/her is [a] Terran.")
tera'ngan ghaH qama' qIppu'bogh yaS'e'
The officer who hit the prisoner is Terran.
("The officer who-has-hit the prisoner is [a] Terran.")
Keeping the prefixes straight, you can get a little fancy:
mulegh je yaS vIleghbogh
The officer whom-I-saw also saw-me.
Does that help, or have I confused you further?
--
Voragh
Ca'Non Master of the Klingons