tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Sun Dec 16 15:16:26 2007

Back to archive top level

To this year's listing

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

Re: jIHtaHbogh naDev vISovbe'

Alan Anderson ( [KLI Member] [Hol po'wI']

ja' SuStel:

> 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.

I didn't mean to imply that relative clauses can automatically form  
locatives.  I'm just pointing out that TKD says a relative clause can  
be translated using the relative pronoun "where".  In concert with  
TKD's previously given explanation of how relative clauses are  
translated into English, I think this "illustrative example" is  
enough support to consider {maSoppu'bogh Qe'} to be a grammatically  
proper Klingon phrase.

Maybe I'm misinterpreting what you mean by "locative sense".  The  
restaurant phrase is a noun described by a relative-clause-marked  
verb, and would still need {-Daq} in order to function as a locative  
in a larger sentence.  {jIHtaHbogh naDev} does not, but I agree that  
it's because of the word {naDev} and not because of the {-bogh}.

-- ghunchu'wI'

Back to archive top level