[2952] in tlhIngan-Hol
Re: Adams Family Motto:
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU)
Thu Feb 3 16:39:24 1994
Errors-To: tlhIngan-Hol-request@klingon.East.Sun.COM
Errors-To: tlhIngan-Hol-request@klingon.East.Sun.COM
Errors-To: tlhIngan-Hol-request@klingon.East.Sun.COM
Errors-To: tlhIngan-Hol-request@klingon.East.Sun.COM
Reply-To: "Klingon Language List" <tlhIngan-Hol@klingon.East.Sun.COM>
Errors-To: tlhIngan-Hol-request@klingon.East.Sun.COM
From: Will Martin <whm2m@uva.pcmail.virginia.edu>
To: "Klingon Language List" <tlhIngan-Hol@klingon.East.Sun.COM>
Date: Mon, 31 Jan 94 10:41:26 EST
On Jan 30, 7:48am, Nick NICHOLAS wrote [and charghwI' replies]:
> Subject: Re: Addams Family Motto:
>
> choja', Will Martin (va, jIDochnIS! ;):
{va}? What does this word mean?
> = nucharghta' luneHbogh DISopmo' maQuch
>
> I did wait, but given noone else has corrected this: there is no head noun
> to your relative phrase.
Good point. We've discussed relative clauses with head nouns as subject
or object of the verb and determining which noun is head when the {-bogh}
verb has both an explicit subject and object. Given that the non-head noun
can be assumed in the verb prefix, I made that extra (and erronious)
extention that the head noun could be described by the prefix as well. Thank
you for the correction.
> Either
> nucharghta' luneHbogh ghot DISopmo' maQuch
>
> or
> nucharghta' luneHwI' DISopmo' maQuch
The first one looks good. The second one looks like bad grammar. When
you nominalize {luneH}, you no longer have a justification for attaching
{nucharghta'} to this sentence. The implied {'e'} no longer fits and the
grammar falls to pieces. Is there something going on here that escapes me?
charghwI'
