tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Mon Dec 17 16:09:22 2007
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
Re: jIHtaHbogh naDev vISovbe'
Alan Anderson (email@example.com)
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
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
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"
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.