tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Tue Dec 18 07:02:41 2007
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
Re: jIHtaHbogh naDev vISovbe'
Doq wrote:
> I have a really hard time taking this one early canon example and
> running with it so far as to assume that it is okay to have a noun
> function as head noun of a relative clause without that noun actually
> being part of the relative clause.
>
> You could easily say, "Well, I'm not saying that it is the head noun."
I believe ghunchu'wI''s argument is that the head noun is described in
TKD as being separate from the relative clause, and modified by it. His
relative clause {maSoppu'bogh} "where we ate/we who ate" is modifying
the head noun, {Qe'Daq} "at the restaurant."
TKD describes the structure as "relative clause plus head noun." The two
form a unit that acts as a noun in the main sentence.
Of course, I too have a great deal of trouble extrapolating all this
from one odd example and one English illustration that is never translated!
SuStel
Stardate 7963.3
--
Practice the Klingon language on the tlhIngan Hol MUSH.
http://trimboli.name/klingon/mush.html