[664] in tlhIngan-Hol
Re: Relative clauses; passive of verbs etc.
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU)
Fri Apr 23 07:13:02 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: 23 Apr 93 10:28:25 GMT
"DAVID R. BARRON" <71603.2241@CompuServe.COM> wrote on 22 Apr 93 12:29:48 EDT
in reply to me (= A. Appleyard):-
> ... 'qamapu' qIppu'bogh yaS'
When quoting Klingon text I enclose it in `grave accents` (ascii 96) to
distinguish quotation signs from Klingon glottal stops, since I reserve
"double quotes" for enclosing English translations.
> (1) relative clauses ... 'qamapu' qIppu'bogh yaS' ... "the officer who hit
the prisoners" or "the prisoners who were hit by the officer" ... which is the
topic? In HolQeD vol.1 no.4 Captain Krankor answers this well. all you need to
do is add the topic suffix -'e' [to the antecedent]: "The officer who hit the
prisoners" = `qamapu' qIppu'bogh yaS'e'` ...
The word "topic" is being confusingly used with two meanings here, as (a)
"what the whole sentence's discussion centres on", and (b) "a noun/etc that a
relative clause refers to". Meaning (b) is correctly called the "antecedent".
As I wrote on 21 Apr 93 15:34:39 ("'e' in relative clauses with 2 nouns in"),
the topic (= a word that I may want to emphasize, which is what I understand
Klingon '`e`' used as a noun suffix is for) need not be the same word as the
antecedent of any relative clause that may be in the sentence. A passivizer
verb suffix (see below) would let the antecedent be brought to the start of
the relative clause to resolve this ambiguity, and would leave `'e'` to its
proper role to emphasize a word.
> ... "I found the phasers in the room in which the officer had been shot."
= `pa'Daq bachpu'bogh yaS pu'mey vItu'`.
I.e. "room-in shoot-perf-relative officer phaser-pl I/him-find". OK here, as
if the clauses are separated:-
I found the phasers in the room; the officer had been shot in the room.
pa'Daq bachpu'bogh yaS; pa'Daq pu'mey vItu'.
"room" is "in the room" in both clauses. But what if there is "in" in only one
of the clauses?:-
I found the phasers in the room; the officer had been shot above the room.
pa'Daq bachpu'bogh yaS; pa' DungDaq pu'mey vItu'.
I found the phasers above the room; the officer had been shot in the room.
pa' DungDaq bachpu'bogh yaS; pa'Daq pu'mey vItu'.
I found the phasers in the room; Maltz had been guarding the room.
pa'Daq bachpu'bogh yaS; pa' 'avpu' matlh.
How to combine each of these pairs of clauses as a relative construction,
with either of the clauses as the relative clause?
> (2) How to say the passive infinitive form "I want to be shot."?: perhaps
... `bachghach vIHev vIneH` = "I want to receive the/a shot."
I still feel that various constructions would go easier with a passivizer
suffix to let subject and object be swopped; perhaps if Marc Okrand let `Hev`
= "receive" be also used as a passivizing verb suffix?: *`bachHevghach vInev`.
> (3) I agree that it would be nice to easily distinguish between the
"agent" and the "instrument"; till then we might settle for `bavwI'` =
"orbiter" and `bavbogh nuv` = "person who orbits".
`we'` and 'wu'` are unused so far: *`X-we'` or *`X-wu'` could be used as
"instrument for X-ing", leaving `X-wi'` as "person who does X", if allowed.
> (4) TIme clauses. He asks how to say "five days after X happens". First I
assume he means "five days after X will happen" if so I suggest `qaSpu' vagh
jajmey 'ej machegh` = "Five days have occured and we'll return." If you're
trying to say "X happens then five days after": `machegh 'ej qaS vagh jajmey`
as in "five days after we return".
What I was trying to point out was: (a) `pa'` VS9 = "before", but there is
no word or suffix for "after"; can this `pa'` be used if the time before (or
the time after, if a suffix for "after" is ever provided) has to be stated?
> (10) ... "to cause" as a separate word ... "The officer caused the guard
to betray his duty-station." = `yaHDaj maghpu' 'avwI' 'e' qaSta' yaSmo'` ...
"The guard betrayed his duty-station this occured intentionally because of the
officer." ... p66 TKD "In complex sentence of this type the second verb never
takes an aspect suffix.": [`Qasta'` > `Qas`] and hope the message gets across.
Or use `ling` = "to produce" as "make": `yaHDaj maghpu' 'avwI' 'e' ling(ta')
yaS'` = "the officer made/produced [the occurence] that 'the guard deserted
his duty-station'".
> it says on pg 66 TKD "In complex sentence ...
Better is e.g. "in TKD 6.2.3" (i.e. refer by section numbers), as I don't
trust that the pagination will be the same in all forthcoming editions of TKD,
particularly if Marc Okrand incorporates the 1992 edition's addendum into the
body of the book.
