[83724] in tlhIngan-Hol
Re: "to-be" + <<-bogh>>
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Alan Anderson)
Mon Dec 24 08:23:50 2007
In-Reply-To: <f5b478ef0712231648h45d4f9e4va12595f3d29c2d1a@mail.gmail.com>
From: Alan Anderson <aranders@insightbb.com>
Date: Mon, 24 Dec 2007 08:20:16 -0500
To: tlhingan-hol@kli.org
Errors-to: tlhingan-hol-bounce@kli.org
Reply-to: tlhingan-hol@kli.org
ja' qa'vaj:
> The whole point is the ambiguity between which item - "bartender"
> or "he/she" - is the entity intended as the head (pro)noun. The
> reason that I switched to using <<ghaH>> instead of continuing with
> <<jIH>> is to avoid having the verb prefix incidentally
> disambiguate the head noun.
It seems to me that any "ambiguity" between the two interpretations
is hardly worth worrying about. What's the real difference between
them?
"He who is the bartender" means "the bartender".
"The bartender who he is" means "the bartender".
It looked like it mattered when you gave the possible interpretations
using nonessential/nonrestrictive English translations. That's why I
pointed out the lack of support for that type of translation, and why
I thought your question was no longer valid once the other
translation was applied.
> My thinking is all prompted by <<jIHtaHbogh naDev vISovbe'>>, which is
> canon. I don't have another specific sentence in mind, I only want to
> understand the options and principles.
If you want to understand that phrase, my best suggestion is that you
start by trying to determine what the role of {naDev} is in relation
to the relative clause.
-- ghunchu'wI'
