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 ( [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.

Stardate 7958.4

Practice the Klingon language on the tlhIngan Hol MUSH.

Back to archive top level