[tlhIngan Hol] The Rudellian plague

SuStel sustel at trimboli.name
Mon Jan 28 07:40:37 PST 2019


On 1/28/2019 10:23 AM, mayqel qunenoS wrote:
> 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.

Yes, it can, and yes, you have to be careful when doing it, as complex 
relative clauses quickly become indecipherable.

There's no reason you couldn't, say, attach a locative phrase to a 
subordinate clause that is itself attached to a relative clause, except 
that voice in your head telling you that nobody will be able to parse it.

-- 
SuStel
http://trimboli.name



More information about the tlhIngan-Hol mailing list