[608] in tlhIngan-Hol
Various sorts of subordinate clauses
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU)
Tue Apr 20 13:35:32 1993
Errors-To: tlhIngan-Hol-request@village.boston.ma.us
Errors-To: tlhIngan-Hol-request@village.boston.ma.us
Errors-To: tlhIngan-Hol-request@village.boston.ma.us
Errors-To: tlhIngan-Hol-request@village.boston.ma.us
Errors-To: tlhIngan-Hol-request@village.boston.ma.us
Errors-To: tlhIngan-Hol-request@village.boston.ma.us
Errors-To: tlhIngan-Hol-request@village.boston.ma.us
Errors-To: tlhIngan-Hol-request@village.boston.ma.us
Reply-To: "Klingon Language List" <tlhIngan-Hol@village.boston.ma.us>
From: A.APPLEYARD@fs1.mt.umist.ac.uk
To: "Klingon Language List" <tlhIngan-Hol@village.boston.ma.us>
Date: 20 Apr 93 16:47:11 GMT
Klingon so far has these types of clause subordination and similar:-
`X-'a'` = "is it true that X", `X-bogh` = "which_rel X",
`X-chugh` = "if X", `X-Di'` = "[as_soon_as|when] X",
`X-jaj` = "I_hope_that X", `X-meH` = "for_purpose X",
`X-mo'` = "because* X", `X-pa'` = "before X",
`X-viS` = "while X".
But how to express:-? "after X"; "get him to X" (like Latin 3rd person
imperative); "X if and only if Y"; "X would have happened if Y had happened"
(past unreal conditions, like Ancient Greek `ean` or `ei ke` with aorist or
imperfect); "I wish that X had happened" (unfulfillable past wishes, like
Ancient Greek uses the particle `eithe` for); "X therefore Y". Note that
intention is not always the same as actual consequence!
`X-jaj` is what Greek teachers would call a wish-optative. Can it also be
used, like in Greek, for subordination?, to make it clear that the matter in
the subordinate clause is hypothetical and not a statement of fact.
Relative clauses: please how to translate each of these?:-
(a) W saw the man who shot Z (c) W saw the man who Y shot
(b) the (man who shot Z) saw X (d) the (man who Y shot) saw X
without ambiguity as to which of W and X is the same person as which of Y and
Z in: W saw X Y shot Z
Klingon's lack of either verb passive, or ability to put subject and object
in unusual positions to let relative clauses follow each other in chain
instead of being embedded in each other, threatens to be a restriction. In
English (b) and (d) could be "X was seen by the man who shot Z" and "X was
seen by the man who Y shot" with the main clause completely finished before
the relative clause starts - imagine how complicatedly multi-nested such a
multi-relative-chained piece as "The House that Jack Built" would become if it
was not allowed in English to put verbs into the passive to convert a (subject
which carries a relative clause) into an agent to get it to the end of the
clause. Or <is> there a way to say "be shot"? (i.e. approximately a reverse of
the causative)
