[85756] in tlhIngan-Hol
Re: Once more into the ship in which I fled
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (ghunchu'wI')
Sat Jun 20 09:13:08 2009
In-Reply-To: <319926.33732.qm@web33802.mail.mud.yahoo.com>
From: "ghunchu'wI'" <qunchuy@alcaco.net>
Date: Sat, 20 Jun 2009 09:11:52 -0400
To: tlhingan-hol@kli.org
Errors-to: tlhingan-hol-bounce@kli.org
Reply-to: tlhingan-hol@kli.org
On Jun 19, 2009, at 6:57 PM, McArdle wrote:
> If we assume for the sake of argument that such clauses are
> possible in Klingon, I think the only way to confront the fact that
> no one (not even MO) has found a good way to construct one is to
> assume that there's some feature of Klingon grammar that Maltz
> hasn't revealed to us, which (I think) frees us up to try to invent
> one.
yI'ogh, yIruch. pabHeylIj vIlo' 'e' yIpIHQo'. Dalo'chugh SoH, vIyaj
'e' yIpIHQo'.
Besides, there *is* an example in TKD of a relative clause using the
clause's locative as its head noun: {jIHtaHbogh naDev vISovbe'}.
It's exceptional among canon examples in several ways (e.g. pronoun-
as-be, locative without {-Daq}). Extrapolating from it is not
guaranteed to yield a general pattern. One thing is unambiguous,
however: the head noun in this example *follows* the relative clause.
-- ghunchu'wI'
