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 ( [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!

Stardate 7963.3

Practice the Klingon language on the tlhIngan Hol MUSH.

Back to archive top level