tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Tue Dec 18 07:02:41 2007

Back to archive top level

To this year's listing



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

Re: jIHtaHbogh naDev vISovbe'

David Trimboli (david@trimboli.name) [KLI Member] [Hol po'wI']



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





Back to archive top level