tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Sun Dec 16 13:58:47 2007
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
Re: jIHtaHbogh naDev vISovbe'
Actually, I think this is simpler than either of you see it.
Adjectives (and numbers with {-DIch} are essentially adjectives) get
Type 5 noun suffixes applied to them when that suffix would otherwise
go on the noun. Meanwhile, the same is not true of relative clauses.
Trying to put {-Doq} on a whole relative clause instead of on the head
noun doesn't work for a simple reason: What if {qach vIleghbogh} had a
subject? What if the person seeing the building wasn't the speaker?
What if he were HoD Qanqor? If you put the {-Daq} at the end of the
whole relative clause then you'd have:
{qach leghbogh HoD QanqorDaq chagh peng.}
Suddenly, you've changed the entire meaning. The location the torpedo
dropped is moved from the building to HoD Qanqor. Instead of "The
torpedo dropped on the house that Captain Krankor saw" it becomes "The
torpedo dropped on Captain Krankor, who saw the house." I can tell you
which of these Captain Krankor would prefer.
That kind of strangeness doesn't happen if you move the Type 5 noun
suffix to an adjective or a number with {-DIch}. Meanwhile, if you put
{-Daq} on an adjective following a noun, that makes the function of
that adjective/verb clearer than if you left {-Daq} on the noun.
qachDaq SuD nuvetlh vIqIH.
qach SuDDaq nuvvetlh vIqIH.
See? The second example is clear. "I met that person in the green
house." The second one means the same thing, but if you were listening
and there was no clear punctuation, you might interpret it as two
sentences. "That person is green in the house. I met him."
Doq
On Dec 16, 2007, at 12:08 PM, David Trimboli wrote:
> QeS 'utlh wrote:
>>> (It does show a type 5 noun suffix applying to an entire phrase
>>> instead of just the word it's attached to, but this should come as
>>> no
>>> surprise, given phrases like {veng tInDaq}.)
>>
>> And {qep'a' wejDIchDaq}. Although if you accept that a type 5 noun
>> suffix attaches to whole phrases in that way, what do you believe is
>> wrong with {qach vIleghboghDaq}?
>
> The former is a name; the latter is not. I do not accept that type 5
> noun suffixes attach to whole phrases unless those phrases are
> indivisible units called "names." And that is just speculation based
> on
> a single example.
>
> But even then, the ordinals seem to me to be something odd. I was just
> pondering the sentence
>
> I saw the boss at the third meeting.
>
> Which of these is correct?
>
> qepDaq wejDIch pIn vIlegh
> qep wejDIchDaq pIn vIlegh
>
> I suspect it's the latter, and the justification is in TKD: "Numbers
> are
> used as nouns. As such they may stand along as subjects or objects or
> they may modify another noun." Therefore, {qep wejDIch} may be
> considered a noun phrase, and it may be appropriate to add {-Daq} to
> it.
>
> SuStel
> Stardate 7958.1
>
> --
> Practice the Klingon language on the tlhIngan Hol MUSH.
> http://trimboli.name/klingon/mush.html
>
>