[83726] in tlhIngan-Hol
Re: "to-be" + <<-bogh>>
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Alan Anderson)
Mon Dec 24 08:23:52 2007
In-Reply-To: <476EE135.9060308@trimboli.name>
From: Alan Anderson <aranders@insightbb.com>
Date: Mon, 24 Dec 2007 08:20:24 -0500
To: tlhingan-hol@kli.org
Errors-to: tlhingan-hol-bounce@kli.org
Reply-to: tlhingan-hol@kli.org
ja' SuStel:
> The only reason we are deciding that Klingon relative clauses
> are restrictive is because the English translations come out that way.
TKD page 63: "The noun modified by a relative clause is the head
noun." The words "modified by" are obviously describing Klingon
relative clauses as restrictive/essential. The words "described by"
instead (or in addition) would have implied the nonessential
interpretation, but such implication is not found.
-- ghunchu'wI'
