tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Wed Dec 19 16:01:07 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 (aranders@insightbb.com) [KLI Member] [Hol po'wI']



ja' Doq:

> I very honestly
> don't think the grammar allows you to have a head noun that is not
> part of the relative clause. Okrand has not described any grammar that
> way that anyone has shown in this rather lengthy thread, and none of
> the canon used so far is unambiguous in its interpretation.

He describes the example phrases as "relative clause plus head noun",  
implying that the head noun is separate from the clause.  He did give  
an example of the usage in question (in English) with "the restaurant  
where we ate", validating his earlier explicit statement that  
relative clauses may be translated as phrases beginning with the word  
"where".  The ambiguity of {jIHtaHbogh naDev} is of the same sort we  
have with *any* example:  either it is correct (and thus supports the  
proposition) or it is an error.

I choose to base my analysis on the examples we have to work with,  
and not choose examples based on my analysis.

> That section of TKD can be interpreted two different ways.
> One is, as you are choosing, to say that Klingon relative clauses can
> do anything that English relative pronouns can do, and since "where"
> is a relative pronoun, Klingon relative clauses can do that, too. We
> just have to figure out how.

I admit that constructing hypothetical examples that can be  
translated using the relative pronouns "when" or "how" or "why" was  
stretching the analysis rather more than TKD supports.  But do you  
deny that TKD tells us  we can translate a relative clause using the  
English word "where"?

> The other interpretation of that section of TKD that I prefer is that
> Okrand was first describing what a relative pronoun is in English,
> without explicitly restricting it to what Klingon relative clauses can
> do. This includes "where".

Apparently you too are dismissing, or at least ignoring, what TKD  
says outright.  "Relative clauses are translated into English as  
phrases beginning with who, which, where, and, most commonly, that."   
Why do you prefer to interpret that as merely telling us about  
English, and not as telling us how relative clauses are translated?   
How is it even open to interpretation?

> You have not climbed out on a limb. You've climbed out on leaves. I
> deeply respect your expertise and I am very disappointed that you have
> stretched your valuable credibility this far. Better that it were
> spent elsewhere more easily justified. It's like watching a great
> warrior engage in a foolish battle. Your reputation deserves better
> maintenance than this, and those who learn from you deserve better
> lessons.


You're absolutely correct -- this is a foolish battle.  I thought I  
had a novel but perfectly TKD-supported way to deal with the  
{jIHtaHbogh naDev vISovbe'} example (though I never intended or  
expected that the analysis would lead to similar usage in the general  
Klingon-speaking community).  The only thing causing me to dwell  
further on it is the fact that some highly skilled speakers seem to  
be dismissing the conclusion not by attacking my reasoning, but by  
contradicting what I see as a clear GIVEN.  That TKD's simple  
statement is not universally accepted as meaning what I read makes me  
wonder what else I might be reading differently from others.

-- ghunchu'wI'





Back to archive top level