tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Sat Dec 22 20:12:05 2007

Back to archive top level

To this year's listing



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

Re: "to-be" + <<-bogh>>

Doq (doq@embarqmail.com)



I'm just not finding {<<pronoun>>-bogh} all that interesting. The  
issue for me is that I don't see pronouns as taking a full set of verb  
suffixes. There are quite a few that have either no functionality or  
really weird, mysterious possibilities.

jIH'egh?

maHchuq?

ghaHbeH?

I prefer {HoD vImoj} to {HoD jIHchoH}.

ghaHHa'?

jIHlu'?

I see {ghaHbogh} as marginally meaningful, requiring really special  
context that is so rare as to verge on poetry. I don't see prose  
having much use for it in an average day. If I never see this  
resolved, I doubt it will decrease the set of things I can express  
comfortably in Klingon.

Just my opinion.

Doq

On Dec 22, 2007, at 7:22 PM, qa'vaj wrote:

> --
> The recent thread started from <<jIHtaHbogh naDev vISovb'e>>  
> branched in two
> directions.  One was a general discussion of relative clauses and the
> relative clause in Klingon. The other branch was related to the formal
> grammatical construction of a "to-be" sentence.  Not discussed was
> specifically how <<-bogh>> works with "to-be".  I think that there  
> are some
> interesting issues related to the latter.  (This is not about the  
> word order
> in the canon sentence, nor "the ship in which I fled").
>
> First, start with some selected basic facts about <<-bogh>> clauses in
> non-"to-be" sentences:
>
> A) ambiguity.
>
> The way Klingon creates a relative clause has an inherent  
> ambiguity.  <<loD
> qIppu'bogh yaS>> can either mean "The officer who hit the man" or it  
> could
> mean "The man who was hit by the officer."
>
> B) ambiguity resolved using 'e'
>
> Post TKD, we learned that the ambiguity can be resolved by marking the
> desired head noun with <<-'e'>>.
>
> C) no ambiguity with the implied pronoun
>
> <<qippu'bogh yaS>> means "The officer who hit him/her".  It seldom  
> if ever
> would mean "He/She who was hit by the officer".  Presumably, the  
> latter
> could be expressed with <<ghaH'e' qippu'bogh yaS>> or maybe <<ghaH
> qippu'bogh yaS>> since the presence of the pronoun itself stands  
> out.  There
> is one piece of cannon <<Dajatlhbogh vIyajbe'>> (or something like  
> that)
> which suggests that sometimes the implied pronoun can be the head noun
> (perhaps when neither subject nor object noun is supplied).
>
> So now consider <<-bogh>> used in "to-be".
>
> 1)
>
> chom ghaHbogh.
>
> There are three possibilities.
>
> 1.a) The same ambiguity of A) applies.  This could either mean "The
> bartender, who he/she is" or "He/she, who is the bartender".
>
> 1.b) The situation is more like C) above, in that the <<ghaH>> is just
> serving something like the implied pronoun, and thus there is no  
> ambiguity,
> <<chom ghaHbogh>> would almost always mean "The bartender, who he/ 
> she is".
> IOW, <<chom>> would almost always be the head noun.
>
> 1.c) The situation is unique for "to-be", and the <<-bogh>> extends  
> the
> semantics of the <<-bogh>>-less sentence. <<chom ghaH>> "he is the
> bartender", <<chom ghaHbogh>> "he, who is the bartender".  IOW,  
> <<ghaH>>
> would almost always be the head 'noun', even though the <<-bogh>> is  
> stuck
> to it by convention.
>
> if 1.b) is true, then what would be the way to force "he/she, who is  
> the
> bartender"? Possibly <<chom ghaHbogh ghaH'e>>?
>
> if 1.a) is true, then <<chom ghaHbogh ghaH'e'>> would force one
> interpretation.  How would the other be forced?  <<chom'e' ghaHbogh>>
> possibly, even though that looks like weird word order.  Also, as I
> mentioned in the other thread <<ghaHbogh chom>> might work, because  
> of the
> marked word order.
>
> if 1.c) is true, then it's a lot like 1.a) except that <<chom ghaHbogh
> ghaH'e'>> would not be required. In this case the <<jIHtaHbogh naDev
> vISovbe'>> canon might be used to justify the pairing <<chom  
> ghaHbogh>>
> "he/she who is the bartender" and <<ghaHbogh chom>> "the bartender who
> he/she is".
>
>
> 2)
>
> chom ghaHbogh HoD'e'.
>
> At first blush, it seems that the ambiguity of A) should be present.  
> But the
> rule in B) sort of conflicts with the <<-'e'>>'s usual usage in the  
> "to-be"
> construction.  Or does it?
>
> If we always interpreted <<chom ghaHbogh HoD'e'>> as "the captain,  
> who is
> the bartender", then we could probably always use <<HoD ghaHbogh  
> chom'e'>>
> as "the bartender, who is the captain."  Does this run into  
> problems?  I
> don't see any offhand. The head noun would always be after the
> pronoun-as-verb when two nouns are present.  That would have a nice  
> symmetry
> if 1.c) above were the way things worked.
>
> 3)
>
> Since the relative clause plus head noun is used as a unit as a noun,
> presumably the prefix agreement would work as follows:
> {assume 1.b) }
>
> jIDun chom jIHbogh jIH'e'
> "I, who am the bartender, am wonderful"
>
> Dun chom jIHbogh
> "The bartender, who is me, is wonderful"
>
>
>
>
> -- 
> qa'vaj
> qo'lIj DachenmoHtaH
>
>
>






Back to archive top level