[110966] in tlhIngan-Hol
Re: [tlhIngan Hol] jIHtaHbogh naDev vISovbe'
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Alan Anderson)
Tue Sep 12 16:26:24 2017
X-Original-To: tlhingan-hol@lists.kli.org
In-Reply-To: <CAP7F2cKB7fRqx+Z=c=n0rTOYNn8jgKA=7-kLOBYtmh8LyZ4WxQ@mail.gmail.com>
From: Alan Anderson <qunchuy@alcaco.net>
Date: Tue, 12 Sep 2017 16:06:55 -0400
To: Klingon language email discussion forum <tlhingan-hol@kli.org>
Reply-To: tlhingan-hol@kli.org
Errors-To: tlhingan-hol-bounces@lists.kli.org
--===============1522214127377041339==
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="94eb2c0325a6f591930559039659"
--94eb2c0325a6f591930559039659
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
If I assume that both {jIHtaHbogh naDev vISovbe'} and {DaH naDev jIHtaHbogh
meq Saja'} are examples of correct Klingon grammar, I can propose a simple
analysis that explains them. It also points to a way to include the meaning
of one of the English phrases presented in TKD as an example of a relative
clause ("the restaurant where we ate").
I just have to shrug off one of Marc Okrand's comments in an interview
about relative clauses, where he said he couldn't make them work with
anything other than the subject or object as the head noun. He implies that
translations of Klingon relative clauses include "that", "which", or "who".
If I instead find that he *did* make a relative "where" work as the head
noun in the {...vISovbe'} sentence, and that he made a relative "why" work
in the {...Saja'} sentence, then there is only one rule from TKD that needs
to be addressed. We're told that the head of the relative clause is placed
based on its role in the clause. The tweak is to say that a head that is
neither the subject nor the object of the clause comes at the end of the
clause, after the OSV portion.
It might turn out that the relative clause acts as the first noun in a N-N
construction, and the second noun isn't exactly its head, but it's the
second noun that fills the role in the outer sentence that the head of the
relative usually takes. Treating it that way, strictly literal translations
of the two examples could be proposed:
"I do not know the here of which I am being."
"I will tell you the reason of which I am being here."
Substituting "here where" and "reason why" for the "X of which" gives
reasonable-sounding translations.
If we only had the original example from TKD, it would be unrealistic to
use it as support for a complete theory of non-subject, non-object relative
clause heads. But the second example from the paq'batlh aligns with it, and
I consider that sufficient.
-- ghunchu'wI'
--94eb2c0325a6f591930559039659
Content-Type: text/html; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
<div dir=3D"ltr"><div class=3D"gmail_extra">If I assume that both {jIHtaHbo=
gh naDev vISovbe'} and {DaH naDev jIHtaHbogh meq Saja'} are example=
s of correct Klingon grammar, I can propose a simple analysis that explains=
them. It also points to a way to include the meaning of one of the English=
phrases presented in TKD as an example of a relative clause ("the res=
taurant where we ate").<br><br>I just have to shrug off one of Marc Ok=
rand's comments in an interview about relative clauses, where he said h=
e couldn't make them work with anything other than the subject or objec=
t as the head noun. He implies that translations of Klingon relative clause=
s include "that", "which", or "who". If I ins=
tead find that he *did* make a relative "where" work as the head =
noun in the {...vISovbe'} sentence, and that he made a relative "w=
hy" work in the {...Saja'} sentence, then there is only one rule f=
rom TKD that needs to be addressed. We're told that the head of the rel=
ative clause is placed based on its role in the clause. The tweak is to say=
that a head that is neither the subject nor the object of the clause comes=
at the end of the clause, after the OSV portion.<br><br>It might turn out =
that the relative clause acts as the first noun in a N-N construction, and =
the second noun isn't exactly its head, but it's the second noun th=
at fills the role in the outer sentence that the head of the relative usual=
ly takes. Treating it that way, strictly literal translations of the two ex=
amples could be proposed:<br><br>=C2=A0 "I do not know the here of whi=
ch I am being."<br>=C2=A0 "I will tell you the reason of which I =
am being here."<br><br>Substituting "here where" and "r=
eason why" for the "X of which" gives reasonable-sounding tr=
anslations.<br><br>If we only had the original example from TKD, it would b=
e unrealistic to use it as support for a complete theory of non-subject, no=
n-object relative clause heads. But the second example from the paq'bat=
lh aligns with it, and I consider that sufficient.</div><div class=3D"gmail=
_extra"><br></div><div class=3D"gmail_extra">-- ghunchu'wI'</div></=
div>
--94eb2c0325a6f591930559039659--
--===============1522214127377041339==
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Disposition: inline
_______________________________________________
tlhIngan-Hol mailing list
tlhIngan-Hol@lists.kli.org
http://lists.kli.org/listinfo.cgi/tlhingan-hol-kli.org
--===============1522214127377041339==--
