tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Tue Dec 18 21:39:54 2007
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
Re: {-Daq} in complex sentences (was Re: jIHtaHbogh naDev vISovbe')
ja' qa'vaj:
> What would your proposal be for "the ship in which he fled"?
DujDaq Haw'ta' ghaH. Dujvetlh vIje'.
See the note I posted Monday evening for why I'm content to do it the
customary way.
/tlhIngan-Hol/2007/December/msg00340.html
> Also, can a noun modified/qualified/described by a relative clause
> be used in noun-noun apposition? If so, what would be your
> proposal for "He who fled's ship"
Such a noun is still a noun, and nothing prevents it from being part
of a noun-noun construction. Except maybe the lack of syntax for
making clear that it *is* the head noun. If I want to be understood,
I won't be that unclear.
Haw'ta' ghaH. DujDaj vIje'.
> Is it part of your idea that anytime that a relative clause
> modifies a head noun that isn't the subject (or object), <<-bogh>>
> can only mean where/at/on (locative sense)?
I believe it's a lot less specific than that. What {-bogh} *means*
is merely that its verb is part of a relative clause. When a head
noun plays the part of subject or object of the relative clause, the
English relative pronoun in its translation is often "which",
although "that" is usually as good a choice, and "who" is obviously
the right word when the head noun is a person. In order to account
for the {jIHtaHbogh naDev vISovbe'} example, I'm convinced that
"where" is okay when the head noun isn't part of the relative clause.
To answer your question directly, I see no reason to exclude the
possibility of other pronouns as appropriate in the translation of a
relative clause. For example, "when" might work for the hypothetical
phrase {bIHeghbogh jaj} "the day when you die". Other unattested
possibilities are {chonay'ta'bogh meq} "the reason why you married
me" and {jImI'nISbogh mIw yI'ang} "show me how I must dance". But in
treating these as possible, I am still not proposing them as models
of acceptable style. They are far removed from the one example we
have, which I must admit might be exceptional.
-- ghunchu'wI'