[1448] in tlhIngan-Hol
still more on relative clauses
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU)
Wed Aug 25 20:32:58 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: Wed, 25 Aug 1993 18:00:29 -0400 (EDT)
X-Vms-To: IN%"tlhIngan-Hol@village.boston.ma.us"
In my last message, I pointed out to Shoulson that the phrase
{DujDaq qagh Soppu'bogh yaS} did indeed have a head noun:
It must be DujDaq acoording to CptKrankor's article, since
it is the only noun in the phrase followed by a type 5
noun suffix. This regretfully was hasty judgment on my part.
DujDaq has no function in the relative clause, but is simply
stating where the eating took place. So the question is, then,
which is the head noun: qagh or yaS. This could be determined
by tacking -'e' onto whichever noun functions as a legitimate
word in the main clause.
Yet, Appleyard is suggesting the use of an antecedent marker.
Well, the truth is, there ain't no antecedent 'cause there
ain't no relative pronoun. English relative phrases focus
around the relative pronoun; but in Klingon they focus
around the verb, which takes a relative suffix. The only words
that are directly associated with the verb are the subject and
object. (In a relative clause, Krankor terms these the "head"
and "tail" nouns.) So, when I look for a solution to translating
"the ship from which" or "the restaurant at which," I slam into
a metaphoric brick wall. I don't see any feasible construction.
Maybe instead of saying, "The restaurant in which we ate burnt
down," flip it around: "We ate in the restaurant which burnt down."
{meQqu'pu'bogh Qe'Daq maSoppu'}. It's equivalent. After all,
relative clauses are merely a way of combining two sentences
that have only one noun in common, the head noun of the relative
clause. It seems that in Klingon, the function of the noun in at
least one of those sentences must be subject or object. This isn't
too restricting. Don't rack your brain trying to figure out
"The fight occurs because of the officer to whom the bartender gives
a drink." I doubt these will come up too often in real life communication.
English has such restrictions: "I should have been more assertive." How
would one change this sentence to continuous aspect? "I should have been
being more assertive." No one ever says this, but neither is anyone really
concerned about it.
Finally, an alternative to Appleyard's make-believe Instrumental -lo'.
For saying, "I shot him with the phaser," instead of {pu'lo' vIbachpu'},
why not think this sentence differently: "I used the phaser in order to
shoot him." {vIbachpu'meH pu' vIlo'}
this is Guido#1 signing off --*
