[tlhIngan Hol] paq'batlh mu'tlhegh

[André Müller]

Let me try to understand this... perhaps I am repeating what others already
said...

We all agree that {naDev jIHtaH} means 'I am here' and that {-bogh} turns
it into a relative clause. So with {meq} afterwards and no {-'e'}
specifying the head of the relative clause, the sentence is syntactically
ambiguous between:

a) 'I will tell you the reasoning of the here that I am at.'
b) 'I will tell you the here which me, the reason, is being (at).'

Neither of these makes immediate sense if we assume that {-bogh} works
really strictly as a relativizer in the classical sense of the word. We
know, in Klingon the head of the relativizer can bear other syntactic
markers like {-Daq}, {-'e'}, {-vo'} and so on. But it can only relativize
things that act as subject or object inside this relative clause. That is,
{puq leghbogh yaSvaD ...} means 'for the officer who sees the child'.
Outside the construction, the head is something like a dative or
benefactive argument, marked with {-vaD}, it could also be marked as a
locative or ablative, or simple with a topicalizer. Inside the construction
(analyzable as {puq legh yaS}, the head {yaS} can really only be a subject,
and {puq} can only be an object. It is not possible to relativize over
oblique arguments and say something like 'I see the officer to whom I gave
the book'. So they're quite restricted.

But apparently relativization can metaphorically connect with nouns
denoting facts or reasons or mental/factual things like that, like in
English "The reason that I am here". It's essentially the same
construction, and is not simply the same as a normal relative clause. This
also works in German ("Der Grund, dass ich hier bin.") and Chinese
("我来这里的愿意。") and Thai and many other unrelated natural languages.
In other words: The head of the relative clause might not actually be an
argument of the relativized clause itself. Another example in English is
"The day that I met your mother.", where 'day' is the head, but neither
subject nor object inside the relative clause. This is called an external
relative clause or an externally headed relative clause.

>From this example we can assume that it also works in Klingon at least with
{meq}, and perhaps there are restrictions, e.g. that the subject (and with
it the verb) inside the relative clause then must be pronominal. It might
be possible to say {qay'moH tlhIngan SoHbogh ngoD} for 'The fact that you
are a Klingon causes problems.' - it is essentially the same construction,
but it's not certain if {ngoD} 'fact' works the same as {meq} 'reason'.

Now either Marc might have simply translated the sentence a bit literal
from English, and didn't notice that it is in fact a rather peculiar
construction, or he did it intentionally, given the fact that many natural
languages work the same way. In that way, I agree that this is a piece of
new grammar, or a small addition to an existing piece of the known grammar.

I'm not sure it's possible to have two full noun phrases inside the
relative clause, and head it with a noun like 'fact' or 'reason'. So is
?{qay'moH tlhIngan ghaHbogh juplI' ngoD} (int.: 'The fact that your friend
is a Klingon causes problems') proper Klingon? We don't know, and I have my
doubts. It's at least unsafe to produce this sentence.

Long story short: The sentence in question is likely an externally headed
relative clause and thus a literal translation of English "the reason that
I am here". This is not uncommon in natural languages, so it should not be
all too surprising to find this in Klingon (though, actually I *am*
surprised; I wouldn't have assumed such a construction).

2016-12-19 13:59 GMT+01:00 mayqel qunenoS <mihkoun at gmail.com>:

> De'vID:
> > {naDev ghaHtaHbogh} "here where he is"
>
> I didn't know that the {-bogh} can express "where". if that is the case,
> then I can understand the sentence from paq'batlh.
>
> however I am curious..
>
> in light of the {-bogh} being able to express the meaning of "where", how
> would you explain the tkd p.172 sentence: {jIHtaHbogh naDev vISovbe'} ?
>
> "here where I am being" ? but in the {naDev ghaHtaHbogh} "here where he
> is" example that you wrote, the {naDev} precedes the {-bogh}..
>
> qunnoH jan puqloD
> ghoghwIj HablI'vo' vIngeHta'
>
> On 19 Dec 2016 2:30 pm, "De'vID" <de.vid.jonpin at gmail.com> wrote:
>
>>
>> On Dec 19, 2016 10:36, "mayqel qunenoS" <mihkoun at gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> De'vID:
>> > {naDev ghaHtaH} means "he/she is here".
>>
>> Yes, I can understand this; but if at the above sentence we had the
>> {-bogh} ({naDev ghaHtaHbogh}), then what would that mean ?
>>
>>
>> "here where he/she is"
>>
>> What's difficult about this? {-bogh} turns a sentence into a relative
>> clause.
>>
>> {SuvwI' HoHpu'} "he killed the warrior"
>> {SuvwI' HoHpu'bogh} "the warrior whom he killed"
>>
>> {naDev ghaHtaH} "he is here"
>> {naDev ghaHtaHbogh} "here where he is"
>>
>> What's the difficulty? Is it that you don't accept that the location is
>> the object of the pronoun/verb?
>>
>> Consider {pa' 'oHtaH vaS'a''e'}. What role does {pa'} play relative to
>> {'oHtaH}?
>>
>>
>> My difficulty in understanding the original paq'batlh sentence,
>> had/has to do with accepting the {naDev jIHtaHbogh} as a noun.
>>
>>
>> {[noun] [verb][suffix]bogh} is a noun. What else could it be? This is
>> just a standard relative clause.
>>
>>
>> If that sentence went: {DaH naDev jIHtaH meq Saja'}, then I could read
>> it as "now, the reason of my being here, I will tell you". But the
>> addition of {-bogh} severely messes me up. It is its presence that I
>> can't explain.
>>
>>
>> What you wrote is ungrammatical as a single sentence. The sentence from
>> the paq'batlh is perfectly formed according to known Klingon grammar and
>> has a clear meaning.
>>
>> --
>> De'vID
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> tlhIngan-Hol mailing list
>> tlhIngan-Hol at lists.kli.org
>> http://lists.kli.org/listinfo.cgi/tlhingan-hol-kli.org
>>
>>
> _______________________________________________
> tlhIngan-Hol mailing list
> tlhIngan-Hol at lists.kli.org
> http://lists.kli.org/listinfo.cgi/tlhingan-hol-kli.org
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.kli.org/pipermail/tlhingan-hol-kli.org/attachments/20161219/56bd82ff/attachment-0003.htm>