[tlhIngan Hol] verbs with {-bogh} and numbers

[nIqolay Q]

On Thu, Oct 19, 2017 at 11:19 AM, mayqel qunenoS <mihkoun at gmail.com> wrote:

> De'vID:
> > That's clearly a situation which isn't yet a problem.
>
> This means that the {wej qay'bogh ghu'} is correct/acceptable too ?


De'vID is pointing out that *wej *also is an adverbial meaning "not yet".
Since relative clauses can take adverbials, *wej qay'bogh ghu'* could also
be translated as "a situation which isn't yet a problem". It's more about
the specific number you picked rather than the construction in general.

On Thu, Oct 19, 2017 at 11:28 AM, SuStel <sustel at trimboli.name> wrote:

> I have no problem with this either, and I don't find it jarring. TKD tells
> us that when you construct a relative clause, that clause with its head
> noun is treated as if it were itself just a noun. If *qay'bogh ghu'* is
> *foo,* then *wej foo *is completely legal.
>
> How many *qay'bogh ghu'* do you have? *wej qay'bogh ghu'.*
>
It makes sense grammatically. But as a stylistic thing, it feels to me like
there's more potential for confusion when splitting the words apart like
that. An object of a relative clause could be interpreted as the first N of
a N-N construction, or vice versa, or some other confusing thing. Keeping a
N-N or number-N construction together feels clearer, more orderly, etc. to
me. (Nobody is likely to interpret *qay'bogh wej ghu'* as "a situation
that's not yet a problem".) It's an aesthetic thing -- it's not wrong, per
se, but it's probably not how I would write it, unless I was intentionally
going for a pun or wordplay.

(I wonder, though: would using commas to set off the relative clause make
sense to most Klingonists? If so, how would you use them? E.g., if I had a
sentence which went like *...mu' mu' wej, qay'bogh ghu', mu' mu'...*, would
that be interpreted as what mayqel is going for? The comma between *wej *and
*qay'bogh* is intended to emphasize that *wej* isn't part of the relative
clause, but would it also make it less clear that *wej* and *ghu'* are
forming a N-N construction? Does the comma after *ghu'* make this more or
less clear? I know there's no explicit canon guidance on the proper use of
commas, this is just a style question.)
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.kli.org/pipermail/tlhingan-hol-kli.org/attachments/20171019/121b1911/attachment-0016.htm>