[2909] in tlhIngan-Hol
Re: Adams Family Motto:
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU)
Tue Feb 1 20:11:13 1994
Reply-To: "Klingon Language List" <tlhIngan-Hol@klingon.East.Sun.COM>
From: dls9@aol.com
To: "Klingon Language List" <tlhIngan-Hol@klingon.East.Sun.COM>
Date: Sun, 30 Jan 94 12:48:28 EST
jatlhpu' NickNicholas (tlhuHwI'):
> I did wait, but given noone else has corrected this: there is no head noun
> to your relative phrase. Either
> nucharghta' luneHbogh ghot DISopmo' maQuch
>
>or
> nucharghta' luneHwI' DISopmo' maQuch
Whoever dictated that the relative clause must have an explicit head noun?
I've just read TKD section 6.2.3 very carefully and I find that its
implications in no way could support an argument in favor of required
explicit head nouns. (In all fairness, tho, the opposing argument has no
support from this section either). So, its one of those
your-guess-is-as-good-as-mine situations.
In this case, the head noun is an implicit {chaH}. I see nothing wrong with
that. But not being a grammarian, I must of course be totally open to any
disagreements.
I want to commend charghwI' for a fine Klingonization of this phrase. The
original quote from the movie was, "We gladly feast on those who would subdue
us." Looking at this sentence, a number of potential complaints could arise
on the part of the translator, such as "How can I say 'gladly' without an
adverbial former, and how can I say 'would subdue' without any sort of
subjunctive form in Klingon??"
But did charghwI' whine about these? Absolutely not. He got around these
restrictions remarkably well.
charghwI', mu'tlhegh'a'lIj batlh Damughta'
majQa' Qapla' je
Guido#1, Leader of All Guidos
