tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Mon Dec 17 05:30:40 2007
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
Re: {-Daq} in complex sentences (was Re: jIHtaHbogh naDev vISovbe')
So, what we have is proof that it is okay to have the subject or
object of a subordinate clause acting as a locative for a main clause.
What we don't have is a locative in a subordinate clause acting as a
subject or object of a main clause, like "The officers captured the
ship in which I fled."
Doq
On Dec 17, 2007, at 12:30 AM, QeS 'utlh wrote:
>
> jIghItlhpu', jIja':
>> Even the {meQtaHbogh qachDaq} example is the only one of its
>> type, I believe;...
>
> mujang ghunchu'wI', ja':
>> {...'u'SepmeyDaq Sovbe'lu'bogh...} "...in unknown regions of the
>> universe..."
>
> maj! This is a clear example of a main-clause {-Daq} appearing on a
> direct object of a subordinate clause. This shows that SuStel's
> {qachDaq
> vIleghbogh Suv qoH neH} "only a fool fights in a house that I see" is
> virtually proven to be correct.
>
> 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
>
> _________________________________________________________________
> New music from the Rogue Traders - listen now!
> http://ninemsn.com.au/share/redir/adTrack.asp?mode=click&clientID=832&referral=hotmailtaglineOct07&URL=http://music.ninemsn.com.au/roguetraders
>