tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Sun Dec 16 18:58:51 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:

> The illustrations of relative clauses are describing ENGLISH relative
> clauses.

I don't think so.  TKD page 44:

   {-bogh} "which"

   This is the relative-clause marker.  It is described in section  

Section 6.2.3 tells us how to translate relative clauses into  
English.  One would naturally assume that means how to translate them  
from Klingon.

> Are you now suggesting that {maSoppu'bogh Qe'} is perhaps legitimate?
> (You said before you didn't think a translation was possible.)

What I said before was that Okrand's comment that he couldn't make it  
work would seem to rule out a direct translation.  I then pointed out  
that he apparently *had* made it work in TKD's appendix.

> Is {Qe'}
> the head noun? Why is it {maSoppu'bogh Qe'} and not {Qe'  
> maSoppu'bogh}?

That's the small assumption I had to make about word order.  I did so  
using what I considered to be the relevant example of {jIHtaHbogh  
naDev} as a model.

> Can you say "I'm going to the restaurant where the officer saw the
> captain?" (HoD leghbogh yaS Qe'Daq vIjaH?)

I can speculate about how to do that, and I can suggest a consistent  
and unambiguous way to do it which does not overtly violate any of  
the written rules about the language.  But I will not do so in a  
public forum, as my speculations on that possibility are unsupported  
by any examples that I can interpret as relevant.

> How do you explain the fact
> that Okrand said he couldn't find a way to set up a relative clause
> unless the head noun were subject or object of the relative verb?

I can't explain it, but I can contradict it.  In my analysis, he  
*did* do exactly that.

-- ghunchu'wI'

Back to archive top level