tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Sun Dec 16 21:28:53 2007

Back to archive top level

To this year's listing

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

Re: jIHtaHbogh naDev vISovbe'

QeS 'utlh (

ghItlhpu' ghunchu'wI', ja':
>I made only a tiny assumption about word order to account for the
>lack of a specific example in the explanation of relative clauses.

Okay, this is my biggest problem with the interpretation. Both you and SuStel have simply glossed over the issue of the bizarre word order and happily accepted it as canon.

My problem is that accepting such a word order as grammatical implies
certain things: we have no other example, anywhere, of anything but a
subject coming after a verb or a topic coming after a copulative. If
{naDev} *is* appearing in topic position here, there are two implications
that I have trouble dealing with: Can the structure be extended, and if
so, by how much? What else could appear in the topic position? And
more to the point, if {naDev} is truly a topic here, why isn't it marked
with the topic suffix?

jang SuStel, ja':
>I don't think you can justifiably claim that "the restaurant where we
>ate" is a useful illustration unless you solve the "ship in which I
>fled" issue.

Your analysis of {jIHtaHbogh naDev vISovbe'} ("I don't know the here I
am") solves the issue for copulative constructions with the three locative
stamp nouns. The question remains, can you do it with ordinary nouns
(so ?{maHtaHbogh Qe'Daq} "the restaurant where we are"?)?

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

What are you waiting for? Join Lavalife FREE

Back to archive top level