tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Tue Dec 18 06:23:56 2007

Back to archive top level

To this year's listing



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

jIHtaHbogh naDev vISovbe'

Doq (doq@embarqmail.com)



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





Back to archive top level