[tlhIngan Hol] The Rudellian plague

mayqel qunenoS mihkoun at gmail.com
Mon Jan 28 07:23:50 PST 2019


Recently I came across the Ca'NoN sentence:

{qarDaSQa'Daq ruDelya' rop'a' Hergh qengbogh yo' Dabot}

Reading it at first, I found it to be pretty straightforward and
unremarkable. But soon it hit me;

If I was asked to translate it without knowing the given Ca'NoN
translation, I would write:

{qarDaSQa'Daq ruDelya' rop'a' Hergh qengbogh yo' Dabot}
At Cardassia, intercept the fleet which carries the rudellian plague relief

However, the Ca'NoN translation goes:
{qarDaSQa'Daq ruDelya' rop'a' Hergh qengbogh yo' Dabot}
Intercept rudellian plague relief convoy to cardassian union

In other words, the way I read initially the sentence was:
qarDaSQa'Daq (ruDelya' rop'a' Hergh qengbogh yo' Dabot)

But the way this sentence is read in Ca'NoN is:
(qarDaSQa'Daq ruDelya' rop'a' Hergh qengbogh yo') Dabot

According to my interpretation, the interception takes place at cardassia
According to Ca'NoN, Cardassia isn't the "where" is this interception
takes place, but the destination of the plague relief convoy.

According to my interpretation, the {-Daq}ed noun refers to the verb
of the sentence {Dabot}.
According to Ca'NoN, the {-Daq}ed noun refers to the {-bogh} clause.

Assuming my analysis so far is correct, I realize something I hadn't
realized so far; that a {-Daq}ed noun, doesn't have to necessarily
refer to the verb of the sentence, but it can refer to a {-bogh}
clause instead.

On one hand, I'm happy to realize that Ca'NoN allows for this kind of
"freedom" in interpreting the scope of a {-Daq}ed noun, however if
this hand becomes a fist, I wonder how the reader would understand
which of these two interpretations of a {-Daq}ed noun, is actually
intended, unless the translation isn't provided as well.

~ mayqel *I love maltz* qunen'oS


More information about the tlhIngan-Hol mailing list