[85758] in tlhIngan-Hol
Re: Once more into the ship in which I fled
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (David Trimboli)
Sat Jun 20 09:26:26 2009
Date: Sat, 20 Jun 2009 09:23:58 -0400
From: David Trimboli <david@trimboli.name>
In-reply-to: <44A483A0-5DB2-42E3-B49D-3C3E4CDDB287@alcaco.net>
To: tlhingan-hol@kli.org
Errors-to: tlhingan-hol-bounce@kli.org
Reply-to: tlhingan-hol@kli.org
ghunchu'wI' wrote:
> 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'
If we *were* to extrapolate based on this example, here's how I think it
would go:
jIHtaHbogh naDev vISovbe'.
I don't know where I am.
jISoptaHbogh naDev vISovbe'.
I don't know where I am eating.
maSopbogh Qe' vISovbe'.
I don't know the restaurant where we ate.
jIHaw'bogh Duj Dalegh.
You saw the ship in which (where) I fled.
But all this is nothing new; you've speculated on exactly this before.
--
SuStel
Stardate 9469.0
