[85132] in tlhIngan-Hol
Relative clause fun
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (d'Armond Speers)
Thu Oct 9 22:38:04 2008
Date: Thu, 09 Oct 2008 20:35:39 -0600
From: d'Armond Speers <speersd@georgetown.edu>
To: tlhIngan-Hol List <tlhingan-hol@kli.org>
Errors-to: tlhingan-hol-bounce@kli.org
Reply-to: tlhingan-hol@kli.org
Relative clauses are discussed in TKD 6.2.3. We are given the option of
referring to the subject of the clause:
qIpbogh yaS vIlegh
...or the object:
yaS qIpbogh vIlegh
However, in other languages there are other options for which element of the
relative clause can be the head noun, besides just the subject and object.
Išm wondering whether their omission from TKD is just absence of evidence,
or evidence of absence. (I.e., are they possible but not described, or are
they not possible because they are not described?)
Here are some example cases:
(A) Indirect Object
loDvaD tev lunobbogh chaH ghaH [John]šeš
John is the man who they gave the prize to
(B) Object of preposition
DujDaq nov vIleghbogh vItIš
I fixed the ship at which I saw the alien
(C) Possessive
yaS HIch vItIšbogh ghaH
Hešs the officer whose gun I fixed
Interestingly, we couldnšt use the {-šeš} disambiguation with any of these.
nuq SuQub?
--Holtej
