tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Mon Dec 24 05:23:11 2007

Back to archive top level

To this year's listing

• Index by Date
• Index by Thread
• Index by Author

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

Alan Anderson ([email protected])

• From: Alan Anderson <[email protected]>
• Subject: Re: "to-be" + <<-bogh>>
• Date: Mon, 24 Dec 2007 08:20:24 -0500
• In-reply-to: <[email protected]>
• References: <[email protected]> <[email protected]> <[email protected]>

ja' SuStel:

> The only reason we are deciding that Klingon relative clauses
> are restrictive is because the English translations come out that way.

TKD page 63:  "The noun modified by a relative clause is the head  
noun."  The words "modified by" are obviously describing Klingon  
relative clauses as restrictive/essential.  The words "described by"  
instead (or in addition) would have implied the nonessential  
interpretation, but such implication is not found.

-- ghunchu'wI'

• References:
  • "to-be" + <<-bogh>>
    • From: qa'vaj <[email protected]>
  • Re: "to-be" + <<-bogh>>
    • From: Alan Anderson <[email protected]>
  • Re: "to-be" + <<-bogh>>
    • From: David Trimboli <[email protected]>

• Prev by Date: Re: jItob'egh
• Next by Date: Re: Apology and continued search
• Previous by thread: Re: "to-be" + <<-bogh>>
• Next by thread: Re: "to-be" + <<-bogh>>
• Index(es):
  • Date
  • Thread
  • Author

Back to archive top level