tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Sat Dec 15 20:23:54 2007

Back to archive top level

To this year's listing

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]

Re: jIHtaHbogh naDev vISovbe'

David Trimboli ([email protected]) [KLI Member] [Hol po'wI']

QeS 'utlh wrote:
> ghItlhpu' SuStel, ja':
>> nuq 'oH pu'jIn'e'?
> 
> qaStaHvIS DISvam qep'a', cha' mu' chu' nob Okrand tetlhvamDaq net 
> ja'. {pu'jIn} 'oH wa''e': "map" 'oS. (latlh'e': {qolqoS} "core,
> essential part of something, essence".)

pojwI'Daq vIchelta'.

> taH:
>> Irrelevant. The presence of a type 5 suffix doesn't mean the noun 
>> can't be a subject or object. We've never seen a subject with
>> {-Daq}, {-vo'}, or {-vaD} on it, but there's no rule that prohibits
>> it either.
> 
> Actually, we have seen such a subject, precisely once:
> 
> meQtaHbogh qachDaq Suv qoH neH only a fool fights in a burning house
> (TKW p.111)

I should have said we've never seen a subject with {-Daq}, {-vo'}, or
{-vaD} on it where the locative sense applies to the clause in which the
noun is the subject. This sentence doesn't meet that. The locative
meaning applies to {Suv qoH neH}, not {meQtaHbogh qach}. This example,
therefore, is not especially remarkable in this regard. (It does show a
type 5 noun suffix applying to an entire phrase instead of just the word
it's attached to, but this should come as no surprise, given phrases
like {veng tInDaq}.)

> Although {qach} bears the suffix {-Daq} and is indeed serving as a 
> locative for the main clause, in the subordinate clause it can't be
> serving as anything but the subject. It doesn't have much relevance
> to {naDev}, but it's at least proof that type 5 suffixes can surface
> on nouns that aren't acting only as simple locatives.
> 
> (Of course, how this would be realised for *objects* serving as
> headers in the main clause is mighty messy, and whether the {-Daq} is
> attached not to {qach}, but to the whole phrase {meQtaHbogh qach}, is
> up for debate. But that's another issue entirely, and one not for
> this thread.)

Just to stick my opinion in this thread anyway, I have no problem with
{qachDaq vIleghbogh Suv qoH neH}. I do have a problem with {qach
vIleghboghDaq Suv qoH neH}.

> taH:
>> And I daresay that few people have trouble accepting the idea of 
>> putting {naDev} in the subject position if context calls for it.
> 
> {lam naDev Hemey} "the streets of this region are dirty". Nope, I
> have no problem with it, although obviously {naDev lam Hemey} works
> just as well for that meaning ("hereabouts, the streets are dirty").

Technically, the subject of this sentence isn't {naDev}, it's {naDev
Hemey}. {naDev} here is simply acting in a genitive role; {Hemey} is the
nominative noun.

You *could* say {lam naDev}, but not {naDev lam} to mean the same thing.

> SuStel jangpu' Doq, ja':
>> Anyway, if {naDev} already has a null variation on {-Daq}, then the
>>  Type 5 suffix is already full, so he couldn't put {-'e'} on it.
> 
> I found three examples of {naDevvo'} in canon, one of which is even
> in TKD, which all explicitly disprove the idea that {naDev} somehow
> already carries a Type 5 suffix:

Very true!

> When acting as headers, {naDev}, {pa'} and {Dat} can probably be 
> viewed as "location stamps" in much the same way as many nouns 
> function as "time stamps", and as such the {-Daq} is redundant. But
> even words traditionally used as time stamps can appear in non- 
> header positions: {cha'vatlh ben HIq} "two-century-old wine" (PK), 

Also true!

SuStel
Stardate 7956.6

-- 
Practice the Klingon language on the tlhIngan Hol MUSH.
http://trimboli.name/klingon/mush.html

Back to archive top level