[85762] in tlhIngan-Hol
Re: Once more into the ship in which I fled
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (McArdle)
Sat Jun 20 16:30:04 2009
Date: Sat, 20 Jun 2009 13:28:04 -0700 (PDT)
From: McArdle <mcardle09@yahoo.com>
To: tlhingan-hol@kli.org
Errors-to: tlhingan-hol-bounce@kli.org
Reply-to: tlhingan-hol@kli.org
--- On Sat, 6/20/09, Rohan F <qeslagh@hotmail.com> wrote:
> From: Rohan F <qeslagh@hotmail.com>
> Subject: Re: Once more into the ship in which I fled
> To: tlhingan-hol@kli.org
> Date: Saturday, June 20, 2009, 11:48 AM
>
>
> MO: In fact it shouldn't! I don't think Klingon fits into
> this hierarchy. Well,
> it does, if you want to look at it that way. I couldn't
> make the {bogh} thing
> work for me with anything other than subject or object.
>
If this statement is to be believed, there must have been a time when MO _wanted_ Klingon to support relative clauses with non-core head nouns. I wonder if he ever considered the type of solution I proposed, and, if so, why he rejected it. It certainly seems (IMHO) to be one way to "make the {bogh} thing work".
Qapla'
