tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Tue Dec 18 21:39:54 2007

Back to archive top level

To this year's listing

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

Re: {-Daq} in complex sentences (was Re: jIHtaHbogh naDev vISovbe')

Alan Anderson ( [KLI Member] [Hol po'wI']

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.


> 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'

Back to archive top level