tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Mon Dec 17 16:31:23 2007

Back to archive top level

To this year's listing

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

Re: {-Daq} in complex sentences (was Re: jIHtaHbogh naDev vISovbe')

Alan Anderson ([email protected]) [KLI Member] [Hol po'wI']

ja' Doq:

> 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."

In order to reach an understanding of the "I'm lost" phrase using the  
information in TKD, I'm noting a difference between "a locative in a  
subordinate clause" and "the head noun of a relative clause where the  
noun is neither subject nor object".  The theoretical grammar  
underlying {jIHtaHbogh naDev} as a proper relative clause does not  
treat the noun as a locative.  In such a case, the clause merely  
describes the noun without incorporating it into itself.

If my analysis is correct, we've been on the wrong track in the past  
by trying to translate "the ship in which I fled" as a complete  
sentence with a relative-clause marker added to it.  Using the phrase  
"in which" rather than "where" leads us to seek a solution containing  
both {-Daq} and {-bogh}.  Instead, I'm suggesting that the head noun  
"ship" isn't actually part of the relative clause "I fled."  This  
disconnect neatly explains {jIHtaHbogh naDev}, and gives {jIHaw'bogh  
Duj} as the answer to the old problem.

-- ghunchu'wI'

Back to archive top level