[1453] in tlhIngan-Hol
Re: Relatives (once more!)
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU)
Wed Aug 25 21:32:16 1993
Reply-To: "Klingon Language List" <tlhIngan-Hol@village.boston.ma.us>
From: j.guy@trl.oz.au (Jacques Guy)
To: "Klingon Language List" <tlhIngan-Hol@village.boston.ma.us>
Date: Thu, 26 Aug 1993 10:43:12 +1000 (EST)
In-Reply-To: <9308251415.AA29995@startide.ctr.columbia.edu> from "shoulson@ctr.
columbia.edu" at Aug 25, 93 10:15:09 am
>
> > > ... Capt Krankor's column in HolQeD Vol.1 No.3 pp 5-6 [says re] relative
> >clauses that "if there is a type 5 noun suffix on one of the nouns, that one
> >must be the 'head noun.'"
> > It isn't the headword in `'ejyo'waw'<Daq> targh bachpu'bogh HoD vIleghpu'`
=
> >"I saw the captain who shot the targ in the starbase"!
>
> Yes; I'm not sure I buy this about *any* type 5 suffix. There's also the
> ambiguity of which clause the "-Daq" is part of. Did the seeing or the
> shooting take place there?
>
The same ambiguity lurks in the English sentence. But disambiguation is
easy:
1. The captain who shot the targ, I saw him in the starbase
2. The captain who shot the targ in the starbase, I saw him.
which, I think, would be (optional stuff in square brackets):
1. targh bachpu'bogh HoD'e' 'ejyo'waw'Daq [HoD/ghaH] vIleghpu'
2. 'ejyo'waw'Daq targh bachpu'bogh HoD vIleghpu'
