tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Sat Jun 20 06:12:51 2009

Back to archive top level

To this year's listing



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

Re: Once more into the ship in which I fled

ghunchu'wI' (qunchuy@alcaco.net)



On Jun 19, 2009, at 6:57 PM, McArdle wrote:

> If we assume for the sake of argument that such clauses are  
> possible in Klingon, I think the only way to confront the fact that  
> no one (not even MO) has found a good way to construct one is to  
> assume that there's some feature of Klingon grammar that Maltz  
> hasn't revealed to us, which (I think) frees us up to try to invent  
> one.

yI'ogh, yIruch.  pabHeylIj vIlo' 'e' yIpIHQo'.  Dalo'chugh SoH, vIyaj  
'e' yIpIHQo'.

Besides, there *is* an example in TKD of a relative clause using the  
clause's locative as its head noun: {jIHtaHbogh naDev vISovbe'}.   
It's exceptional among canon examples in several ways (e.g. pronoun- 
as-be, locative without {-Daq}).  Extrapolating from it is not  
guaranteed to yield a general pattern.  One thing is unambiguous,  
however: the head noun in this example *follows* the relative clause.

-- ghunchu'wI'






Back to archive top level