tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Sun Dec 16 14:10:14 2007

Back to archive top level

To this year's listing



[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]

Re: jIHtaHbogh naDev vISovbe'

Doq (doq@embarqmail.com)



Looking at this again, notice that {qep'a' wejDIchDaq} is a phrase,  
while your proposed {qach *vIleghboghDaq} is a CLAUSE. Type 5 noun  
suffixes will migrate to the end of a noun phrase, but not a relative  
clause. A noun phrase, generally speaking, has one noun the phrase  
describes, while a relative clause can easily have more than one noun,  
and the Type 5 might belong to any one of them, depending upon your  
meaning.

Of course, you can have more than one noun in a phrase, but that is  
only allowed in the genitive or possessive noun-noun construction, and  
we've been told that you can't put a Type 5 noun suffix on the first  
noun in this case.

Doq

On Dec 16, 2007, at 6:54 AM, QeS 'utlh wrote:

>
> jIghItlhpu', jIja':
>> meQtaHbogh qachDaq Suv qoH neH
>> only a fool fights in a burning house
>
> mujang SuStel, ja':
>> 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.
>
> That's very true. Even the {meQtaHbogh qachDaq} example is the only
> one of its type, I believe; we only have {-Daq} attested on direct
> objects.
>
> taH:
>> (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}?
>
> jIjatlhtaH:
>> {lam naDev Hemey} "the streets of this region are dirty"
>
> jangtaH SuStel:
>> Technically, the subject of this sentence isn't {naDev}, it's {naDev
>> Hemey}.
>
> Yes, you're right, and as you point out, {lam naDev} is just as  
> suitable
> as an example. Nonetheless, {naDev} *is* acting in a genitive function
> (which fills the type 5 suffix slot with something other than {-Daq}
> anyway), and not a locative function, so it still proves the point.
>
> QeS 'utlh
> tlhIngan Hol yejHaD pab po'wI'
> (Grammarian of the Klingon Language Institute)
>
>
> not nItoj Hemey ngo' juppu' ngo' je
> (Old roads and old friends will never deceive you)
> - Ubykh Hol vIttlhegh
>
> _________________________________________________________________
> Your Future Starts Here. Dream it? Then be it! Find it at www.seek.com.au
> http://a.ninemsn.com.au/b.aspx?URL=http%3A%2F%2Fninemsn%2Eseek%2Ecom%2Eau%2F%3Ftracking%3Dsk%3Ahet%3Ask%3Anine%3A0%3Ahot%3Atext&_t=764565661&_r=OCT07_endtext_Future&_m=EXT
>






Back to archive top level