[1442] in tlhIngan-Hol
more on relative clauses,
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU)
Tue Aug 24 19:32:05 1993
Reply-To: "Klingon Language List" <tlhIngan-Hol@village.boston.ma.us>
From: DSTRADER@delphi.com
To: "Klingon Language List" <tlhIngan-Hol@village.boston.ma.us>
Date: Tue, 24 Aug 1993 18:39:39 -0400 (EDT)
X-Vms-To: INTERNET"tlhIngan-Hol@village.boston.ma.us"
jIlIH'egh. "AndrewStrader" 'oH pongwIj'e' 'a "Guido" tuponglaH.
That's pronounced following Italian phonetics "gweedoh." It is NOT
"Guide-o." Since I'm among linguists, I doubt I'll have that trouble.
I'm appr. 2 days new on this mailing list. Not to overwhelm anyone,
but I'm going to lunge into this conversation as I have some points
I'd like to express.
When I read Appleyard's message which mentioned his idiosyncratic
suffixes, e.g., -'I' and -lu', I was utterly surprised. I couldn't
have fathomed that such liberalism existed in Klingon. I'm not just
picking on Appleyard; I'm sure it will be understood when I state that
I am leniant toward making sure we're all speaking the same tlhIngan Hol.
Only an Okrandian endorsement will allow my conscience to justify ANY
new grammatical extrapolations. After all, it was Robert Burchfield,
editor of the OED, who postulated that any the present rate, American
English and British English will be two distinguishable language in 200
years. This is fine, English is well over 1500 years old already. However,
let's please not let this happen to a language that hasn't even gotten
off the groung yet.
Ok, that's out of the way, onto grammatical business....
Mark Shoulson quoted the sentence DujDaq qagh Soppu'bogh yaS in his last messa.
. He raised the question of ambiguity in identifying that
this sentence has no specific head noun. I would like to refer to
CptKrankor's column in the Vol.1, No.3 issue of HolQeD where, on pgs.5-6
he concludes on the subject of relative clauses that "if there is a type 5
noun suffix on one of the nouns, that one must be the 'head noun.'"
His example is yaSmo' qIppu'bogh HoD qaSpu' qIQ, where yaSmo' is
unquestionably the head noun (which functions as the object of the relative
verb.) Thus, ANY type 5 noun suffix (not just -'e') can be used to
specify the head noun of a relative clause. Earlier in the article, Krankor
mentions his discussion with Okrand on his findings. Happily, this IS
an Okrandian-endorsed product.
this is Guido#1 signing off --*
