tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Sun Dec 16 12:20:26 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']

Alan Anderson wrote:
> ja' SuStel:
> 
>>> 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}.
> 
> I hope that what you wrote isn't what you meant.  Can you rephrase  
> it?  As it stands, I must disagree completely.  The locative meaning  
> undeniably applies to {meQtaHbogh qach}:  "IN a building which burns".

What I wrote is exactly what I meant; you have misunderstood it. The 
locative is a locative of the phrase {Suv qoH neH}. It is not a locative 
of the phrase {meQtaHbogh qach}. {qach} is the subject of {meQtaHbogh}, 
but the locative sense doesn't apply to that clause.

I can illustrate with examples. We have never seen anything of the form:

    [main object] <main verb> <main subject>Daq

In {meQtaHbogh qachDaq Suv qoH neH} we have, rather:

    <relative verb> <relative subject>Daq <main verb> <main subject>
which is equivalent to the form
    <location>Daq <verb> <subject>

In other words, the {-Daq} in the sentence in question forms a locative 
for the main clause, not the relative clause. We are talking about where 
the fighting takes place, not where the burning takes place.

SuStel
Stardate 7958.4

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

Back to archive top level