tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Sun Dec 16 12:33:49 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:

> 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".

Which means that "The restaurant where we ate," an illustrative example 
that is not translated, explained, or shown in any canon, cannot be used 
to support the notion that relative clauses inherently include any kind 
of locative sense.

> 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".

This is essentially the same as my analysis. The {naDev} isn't a subject 
or object of the relative clause; it's a "beable" (thanks for the 
word!). When a beable includes a locative sense, whether inherent in the 
noun or included with {-Daq}, the beable includes the meaning of 
"where," "in," "on," or "to." When one says {naDev jIH}, one is saying 
"My being is [in] here," just as {HoD jIH} means "My being is the captain."

The difference is, you're assuming the locative sense comes from the 
relative clause, whereas I think it comes from the noun. Remember that 
we are explicitly told that {naDev} contains a locative sense all on its 
own.

> 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.

I don't think you can justifiably claim that "the restaurant where we 
ate" is a useful illustration unless you solve the "ship in which I 
fled" issue. It's exactly the same thing. "The restaurant in which we ate."

SuStel
Stardate 7958.5

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

Back to archive top level