tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Sun Sep 01 22:44:26 2013

Back to archive top level

To this year's listing

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

Re: [Tlhingan-hol] Klingon Word of the Day: naj

Bellerophon, modeler (

<div dir="ltr">Thanks for your patience. Dyslexia, presbyopia, and clumsy typing add up to a perfect storm, especially in a language with which I am insufficiently familiar. I finally increased the font size in my browser, which should cut down on my typos, so hopefully I will only make instructive mistakes from now on.<div class="gmail_extra">

</div><div class="gmail_extra">{vabDot} would be darned useful, as is {neH}. Where did you see it?<br></div><div class="gmail_extra"><br></div><div class="gmail_extra">About relative clauses, I forgot about the &quot;fool fights in a burning house&quot; example. Unfortunately, one could use {-bogh} with Type 5 suffixes other than {-&#39;e&#39;} to get a sentence that is at best ambiguous, e.g. {*mangvaD leghbogh yaS waq vInob} Is it even intelligible? &quot;I give a shoe to the soldier whom (or for whom?) the officer sees.&quot; Probably the only way the Type 5 suffix other than {-&#39;e&#39;} can work reliably is if it is on the subject noun of the relative clause and the relative clause is some sort of object in the main clause, as in<span style="font-family:arial,sans-serif;font-size:14px"> {meQtaHbogh qachDaq Suv qoH neH}</span>. In other words, if the relative clause were eliminated except for the head noun, the sentence would still make grammatical sense: <span style="font-family:arial,sans-serif;font-size:14px">{qachDaq Suv qoH neH}</span>. Having a subject of a sentence be a relative clause with a head noun marked with -vaD, -mo&#39;, -vo&#39;, or -Daq probably may not work reliably: {?mulegh mangvaD waq nobbogh yaS}. Does that make sense? Maybe so. {?mulegh mangvaD waq nobbogh yaS&#39;e&#39;} seems to make sense as /The officer who gives the shoe to the soldier sees me/. I recall MO stated he couldn&#39;t make relative clauses work except with head nouns as either subject or direct object.</div>

<div class="gmail_extra"><br></div><div class="gmail_extra">My intuition decades ago (when I was considering Klingon grammar but not really trying to use it) was that the fixed word order of obj-verb-subj would create problems with complex sentences, and I supposed then that Klingons might get out of the mess by devising a verb affix to reverse the sense of the verb, sort of like passive voice but not just for indefinite subject. The reversing affix would work like this: {qIrq HoH#reverser# Qugh} /Kruge is killed by Kirk/ or simply /Kirk kills Kruge/. Or perhaps it will turn out that the topic suffix was only assumed to be a Type 5 since it had never been observed following a Type 5 suffix.</div>
<div class="gmail_extra"><br></div><div class="gmail_extra">However, it seems to me that neither of these expedients is sufficient to let relative clauses in Klingon do everything they can do in Earth languages I&#39;m familiar with. How for instance would one translate &quot;I gave the restaurant where we ate a good review&quot;? &quot;Restaurant&quot; is a dative object to the main clause, but a locative object to the relative clause. Even if you could have {*Qe&#39;vaDDaq} or {*Qe&#39;DaqvaD}, the sentence would be unintelligible. The resulting gibberish could as easily be interpreted as &quot;I gave a good review at the restaurant for which we ate.&quot;</div>

<div class="gmail_extra"><br></div><div class="gmail_extra">My hope is that since MO is a linguist, he can surely devise the right questions to ask Maltz to resolve the problems of relative clauses.</div>

<div class="gmail_extra"><br></div><div class="gmail_extra">~&#39;eD</div><div class="gmail_extra">
<br><div class="gmail_quote">
On Sun, Sep 1, 2013 at 10:08 PM, Alan Anderson <span dir="ltr">&lt;<a href=""; target="_blank"></a>&gt;</span> wrote:<br><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left-width:1px;border-left-color:rgb(204,204,204);border-left-style:solid;padding-left:1ex">

Try {...vabDot jInajtaHvIS} &quot;even while I am dreaming&quot;. We&#39;re not<br>
completely sure how {vabDot} works yet, but I think it&#39;s a reasonable<br>
guess that it is an adverbial that means pretty much what you want.<br>
We&#39;ve only seen it at the beginning of a sentence. (It might also be a<br>
noun, but how that would work is less clear.)<br>
&gt; Is it just me (you&#39;ll probably say it<br>
&gt; is, Qov) or is there a shortage of adverbials?<br>
There is certainly a limited number of them, but I wouldn&#39;t call it a shortage.<br>
-- ghunchu&#39;wI&#39;<br></blockquote></div>-- <br>My modeling blog:          <a href=""; target="_blank"></a><br>My other modeling blog:  <a href=""; target="_blank"></a> <br>

Tlhingan-hol mailing list

Back to archive top level