tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Sun Dec 16 03:50:11 2007
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
Re: {-Daq} in complex sentences (was Re: jIHtaHbogh naDev vISovbe')
- From: QeS 'utlh <[email protected]>
- Subject: Re: {-Daq} in complex sentences (was Re: jIHtaHbogh naDev vISovbe')
- Date: Sun, 16 Dec 2007 21:45:19 +1000
- Importance: Normal
jIghItlhpu', jIjatlh:
>(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.)
mujang SuStel, ja':
>Just to stick my opinion in this thread anyway, I have no problem with
>{qachDaq vIleghbogh Suv qoH neH}.
For "only a fool fights in a house that I see"? I concur. Since there's no
immediately obvious direct object for {vIleghbogh}, I don't see how this
could be parsed other than with {-Daq} belonging to the main clause,
not the subordinate one (excepting the ever-lurking Headless Relative).
Where I thought it would get messy is if there happened to be a {-Daq} header in the subordinate clause, but in retrospect, I see that there wouldn't ever be anything between the {-Daq}-bearing direct object and the verb to interfere with parsing, since all headers of a clause appear before the basic OVS unit of the sentence.
taH:
>I do have a problem with {qach vIleghboghDaq Suv qoH neH}.
maQochbe'qa'.
QeS 'utlh
tlhIngan Hol yejHaD pab po'wI'
(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
_________________________________________________________________
New music from the Rogue Traders - listen now!
http://ninemsn.com.au/share/redir/adTrack.asp?mode=click&clientID=832&referral=hotmailtaglineOct07&URL=http://music.ninemsn.com.au/roguetraders