tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Sun Dec 16 10:34:37 2007
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
Re: jIHtaHbogh naDev vISovbe'
- From: Alan Anderson <[email protected]>
- Subject: Re: jIHtaHbogh naDev vISovbe'
- Date: Sun, 16 Dec 2007 13:30:18 -0500
So this is what you guys have been discussing while I was temporarily
unsubscribed? I wish I had checked the web archives earlier, because
I have some interesting observations on the topic.
The phrase is small. It's only three words, and only one of them is
a noun. If it is grammatically correct, it ought to yield to
analysis, right?
Let's start with the noun:
{naDev} "here"
It's in the wrong place to be the object of the {jIHtaHbogh} pronoun-
as-be-verb. The pronoun is {jIH}, so {naDev} isn't its subject
either; it lacks the required {-'e'} anyway. It makes sense only as
a locative or as the object of {vISovbe'}: "I don't know here" or "I
don't know it, here."
There's one main verb (one lacking a Type 9 suffix):
{vISovbe'} "I do not know [it]."
This is so straightforward that there's little to say about it. With
{naDev} as its object, "I don't know here" is a fine interpretation,
though it could also be a locative: "I don't know it, here."
The only other word in the sentence has a relative-clause marker:
{jIHtaHbogh}
Now we have a problem. Relative clauses act as a noun in the main
clause. What's the head noun here? If it's an example of the
mythical "headless relative", the clause would mean "what I am", and
that doesn't fit the sentence. This clause is in the object position
of the main sentence. We already know that "here" is the obvious
object of the main clause, and we've already ruled out {naDev} as
either subject or object of the relative clause. So we're at a dead
end...or are we?
Let's do some careful research. TKD 6.2.3 describes relative clauses:
"Relative clauses are translated into English as phrases beginning
with who, which, where, and, most commonly, that." Then it gives
some examples in English: "Like adjectives, they describe nouns: the
dog which is running, the cat that is sleeping, the child who is
playing, the restaurant where we ate."
Do you notice something here that we typically ignore? "The
restaurant WHERE we ate." Relative clauses include the idea of "where"!
We know that a relative clause's noun can take on essentially any
role in the main clause. It's a subject in {mulegh qIppu’bogh yaS}
(TKD p.64). It's an object in {qIppu’bogh yaS vIlegh} (TKD p.64).
It's a locative in {meQtaHbogh qachDaq Suv qoH neH} (TKW p.111). But
we're given explicit examples only of the head noun as subject or
object of the relative clause. Indeed, in the interview reported in
HolQeD 4:2, Marc Okrand said “I couldn't make the {-bogh} thing work
for me with anything other than subject or object.” That seems to
rule out a direct translation of "the restaurant where we ate".
But maybe he had forgotten the {jIHtaHbogh naDev vISovbe'} phrase,
which looks like a perfect example of such non-subject, non-object
usage. The only noun in the sentence is {naDev}. We've ruled it out
as the subject and the object of the relative clause. If it's part
of the clause at all, it has to be something else. We've read that
relative clauses include the idea translated as "where" in English.
So the remaining possibility is to translate {jIHtaHbogh naDev} as
"here where I am".
And now the analysis is complete. "I do not know [the] here where I
am." It follows the rules as given in TKD. I made only a tiny
assumption about word order to account for the lack of a specific
example in the explanation of relative clauses.
I wrote an article about this for HolQeD many years ago. It was
rejected by at least one of my peers, partly for extrapolating far
beyond what I've written here. So I'm going to leave this for you
all to ponder, and I'm not going to explore any hypothetical
implications of the "ship in which I fled" issue.
-- ghunchu'wI'