[1432] in tlhIngan-Hol
relative clauses?
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU)
Mon Aug 23 10:05:10 1993
Reply-To: "Klingon Language List" <tlhIngan-Hol@village.boston.ma.us>
From: A.APPLEYARD@fs1.mt.umist.ac.uk
To: "Klingon Language List" <tlhIngan-Hol@village.boston.ma.us>
Date: 23 Aug 93 13:43:30 GMT
j.guy@trl.OZ.AU (Jacques Guy) wrote on Mon, 23 Aug 1993 10:33:53 +1000 (EST)
(Subject: relative clauses?) (summarized):-
qIppu'bogh yaS vIlegh I see the officer who hit him/her
yaS qIppu'bogh vIlegh I see the officer whom he hit
qIppu'(bogh) yas the officer (who) hit him
yaS qIppu'(bogh) the officer (who) he hit
yaS qIppu'(bogh) puq the child (who) hit the officer <or> (1)
the officer (who) was hit by the child
[He tried] "the child hit the officer, I see the/that child" =
`yaS qIppu' puq, puq<*> vIlegh` ...
[What about] "the torpedo with which we destroyed the spaceship"? (2)
I suppose that `Duj wIQaw'pu'bogh penglo'` (if `lo'` = "use" (noun & verb)
can be used as an instrumental suffix) is any of:-
the torpedo with which we destroyed the ship
the ship which we destroyed with the/a torpedo
we who destroyed the ship with a/the torpedo
I have seen a suggestion to put `'e'` after the antecedent (= the word which
in English would have "who/which" after it); but that, and another idea with
`'e'`, cause ambiguity with existing uses of `'e'`. In the final analysis we
need Marc Okrand to define:-
(1) A new particle, say `'i'`, to mark the antecedent.
(2) A new verb suffix, say Y, to swop subject and object: `A X B` = `B XY A`
so that the relative clause can for greater clarity be put at one end of the
main clause instead of inside it.
