tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Tue Dec 18 06:23:56 2007
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
jIHtaHbogh naDev vISovbe'
- From: Doq <[email protected]>
- Subject: jIHtaHbogh naDev vISovbe'
- Date: Tue, 18 Dec 2007 09:22:21 -0500
- Authentication-results: smtp07.embarq.synacor.com [email protected]; spf=neutral
- Authentication-results: smtp07.embarq.synacor.com [email protected]; auth=pass (LOGIN)
- X_cmae_category: 0,0 Undefined,Undefined
Okay, here's another interpretation:
{jIHtaHbogh} has no explicit head noun. The implicit head noun is
obviously {jIH}.
{jIHtaHbogh naDev} is a genitive noun-noun phrase. Whose "here" is it?
It's mine. Which me? The me who I continue to be. The whole function
of the relative clause is to identify "me", not "here". Once "me" is
identified, then "here" is identified, but again, the function of the
relative clause is not to identify "here". It is to identify "me".
{jIHtaHbough naDev vISovbe'.} I don't know the here that belongs to
the me who I continue to be.
It's still butt ugly, but it is intelligible this way.
This does not work for "the restaurant where I ate" because I don't
own the restaurant the way I own "here", so the noun-noun phrase trick
doesn't work in that case.
What we are left with is one ugly example that does not generalize
well at all. This is probably appropriate.
Doq