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

Back to archive top level

To this year's listing



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

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

Alan Anderson (aranders@insightbb.com) [KLI Member] [Hol po'wI']



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'





Back to archive top level