tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Tue Dec 25 23:17:58 2007

Back to archive top level

To this year's listing

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

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

qa'vaj (

On Dec 24, 2007 7:20 AM, Alan Anderson <> wrote:

> It looked like it mattered when you gave the possible interpretations
> using nonessential/nonrestrictive English translations.  That's why I
> pointed out the lack of support for that type of translation, and why
> I thought your question was no longer valid once the other
> translation was applied.


I understood why you pointed out your belief in the lack of support for that
type of translation.  I also understand - and have no problem with - your
view that the ambiguity issue can be safely disregarded.  The problem is
that you are making your case based on the semantics of examples that I
created merely to have something to point to for discussion of the
construction of  "to be" + <<-bogh>>.

This is the moment in time when the issue happened to occurred to me, and
I'm temporarily interested in it.  The only satisfying way to feel
comfortable ignoring the issue would be clear reasoning that there are no
possible circumstances in any story ever in which the ambiguity in
identifying the head (pro)noun of a relative clause based on "to be" could


> > My thinking is all prompted by <<jIHtaHbogh naDev vISovbe'>>, which is
> > canon.  I don't have another specific sentence in mind, I only want to
> > understand the options and principles.
> ja' ghunchu'wI' :

> If you want to understand that phrase, my best suggestion is that you
> start by trying to determine what the role of {naDev} is in relation
> to the relative clause.
> Apologies again for not being clear.  In my sentence "understand the
options and principles" I was referring to the options and principles of "to
be" + <<-bogh>>, not the canon sentence.  While others were focused on
explaining the weird word order, I was more interested in how "to be" works
to form relative clause constructions.  I had just recently posted a quickie
tlhIngan Hol 'take' on "Green Eggs and Ham", and had forgotten the <<-bogh>
ambiguity issue in <<qagh mIQta'bogh vay'>>, so I was likely attuned to that
sort of thing.

I always saw {naDev} as the noun being modified by the relative clause (to
use your terminology).  IMHO, that's clear from the semantics.

qo'lIj DachenmoHtaH

Back to archive top level