tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Mon Dec 17 16:09:22 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' 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.

For this analysis I start from a position of treating the "I'm lost"  
phrase as an example of correct Klingon, so I must accept the word  
order.  To do otherwise would be to render the entire exercise  
pointless.

I hope that I've given a reasonable basis for not calling the word  
order bizarre.  It differs from other examples of proper Klingon, but  
that's fine, as it appears to be an example of a usage not seen  
elsewhere.  While it does not fit any patterns we're accustomed to, I  
believe it is prefectly consistent with TKD's description of relative  
clauses.

It is unfortunate that the example uses a pronoun as the verb in the  
relative clause.  There might be exceptional grammar at work.  But  
since TKD includes "the restaurant where we ate" as an example of a  
relative clause, I believe the analysis is not restricted to "to be"  
phrases.



There is another possibility I should point out.  The apparent  
grammar at work here might apply only to fossilized phrases without  
being applicable to "modern" Klingon.  But even if it doesn't give us  
any tools for greater expressiveness, I think it adequately explains  
this one problematic phrase from TKD's appendix.

-- ghunchu'wI'





Back to archive top level