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 (aranders@insightbb.com) [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  
6.2.3.

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