[90782] in tlhIngan-Hol
Re: [Tlhingan-hol] Use of -'e' with relative clauses
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Rohan Fenwick - QeS 'utlh)
Fri Nov 18 23:23:42 2011
From: Rohan Fenwick - QeS 'utlh <qeslagh@hotmail.com>
To: <tlhingan-hol@kli.org>
Date: Sat, 19 Nov 2011 14:23:25 +1000
In-Reply-To: <CAFK8js0vhXnqdRup4PMmPbTkCgN7JmpYvDRiLPEkFGczfTRoxg@mail.gmail.com>
Errors-To: tlhingan-hol-bounces@stodi.digitalkingdom.org
tlhobpu' Philip, jatlh:
> Is this use of -'e' mandatory in such a case (where both subject and
> object are represented by nouns)?
jang ghunchu'wI', jatlh:
> The ability to leave the ambiguity unresolved is one of my favorite
> corners of Klingon grammar.
For me too. The proverb {Hov ghajbe'bogh ram rur pegh ghajbe'bogh jaj}
from CK is better, I think, for the fact that either interpretation is
possible. I did it a few times in the Rime, too. One in particular I
felt would have been badly served by choosing one or the other was:
One after one, by the star-dogged moon,
which I translated as
maH DungDaq leng maS tlha'bogh Hov
because both the moon and the star are travelling, in truth. Choosing
one or the other to be the obligate head of the clause with {-'e'}
would have made the sense more limited.
QeS 'utlh
_______________________________________________
Tlhingan-hol mailing list
Tlhingan-hol@stodi.digitalkingdom.org
http://stodi.digitalkingdom.org/mailman/listinfo/tlhingan-hol
