[85757] in tlhIngan-Hol
Re: Once more into the ship in which I fled
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (David Trimboli)
Sat Jun 20 09:14:51 2009
Date: Sat, 20 Jun 2009 09:13:12 -0400
From: David Trimboli <david@trimboli.name>
In-reply-to: <117428.22413.qm@web33802.mail.mud.yahoo.com>
To: tlhingan-hol@kli.org
Errors-to: tlhingan-hol-bounce@kli.org
Reply-to: tlhingan-hol@kli.org
McArdle wrote:
>
>
> --- On Fri, 6/19/09, MorphemeAddict@wmconnect.com
> <MorphemeAddict@wmconnect.com> wrote:
>
>> There is no necessity for relative clauses modifying nouns in
>> non-core roles, so it's not fruitful to invent ways to do it.
>> Simply use two sentences: I fled in a ship. Once more into that
>> ship.
>>
>> This is a long-known solution; I merely bring it up again.
>>
>> lay'tel SIvten
>>
>
> That strikes me as less a solution than a rationalization for not
> finding a solution.
No, it's a solution which says that Klingon doesn't do what you're
asking at all, or at least if there's a way it is unknown and probably
unknowable without input from Okrand.
> There's always that nagging "restaurant in which
> we ate" example in TKD to suggest that a real solution (one that's
> recognizably a relative clause, not a transparent workaround) is at
> least theoretically possible.
>
> Qapla'
>
> mI'qey
I have yet to see any reason to believe that the appearance of "the
restaurant where we ate" is anything but an example explaining how a
relative clause works in *English*. I do not feel nagged by it in the
slightest.
--
SuStel
Stardate 9468.9
