tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Sat Jun 20 06:26:09 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

David Trimboli (david@trimboli.name) [KLI Member] [Hol po'wI']



ghunchu'wI' wrote:
> 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'

If we *were* to extrapolate based on this example, here's how I think it 
would go:

jIHtaHbogh naDev vISovbe'.
I don't know where I am.

jISoptaHbogh naDev vISovbe'.
I don't know where I am eating.

maSopbogh Qe' vISovbe'.
I don't know the restaurant where we ate.

jIHaw'bogh Duj Dalegh.
You saw the ship in which (where) I fled.

But all this is nothing new; you've speculated on exactly this before.

-- 
SuStel
Stardate 9469.0






Back to archive top level