[tlhIngan Hol] two type-5 on a {-bogh} phrase

SuStel sustel at trimboli.name
Thu Jun 27 06:39:43 PDT 2019


On 6/27/2019 9:22 AM, terrence.donnelly wrote:
> Since when has any suffix besides -'e' been legal on either  noun 
> which is the subject or object of a relative verb? Did Okrand change 
> his statement that he couldn't make it work as anything but subject or 
> object and I missed it?

I think you've misunderstood what Okrand was saying. 
<http://klingonska.org/canon/1995-06-holqed-04-2-a.txt> Lawrence's 
question was "We know that the head-noun of a relative clause can be the 
subject or the object; the question is, can it be any other case?" He 
means the head noun can be the subject or the object of the relative 
clause, not the main clause.

When Okrand said "I couldn't make the *-bogh* thing work for me with 
anything other than subject or object," he means the head noun couldn't 
be, for instance, a locative attached to the relative clause.

That's the "ship in which I fled" problem. You can construct a relative 
clause around a ship that does something or a ship which has something 
done to it, but you can't construct relative clause around a ship in 
which, for which, or because of which something is done.

Good:

    *mutlha' Duj vIjunpu'bogh*/
    The ship which I evaded chases me./

    *mutlha' mujunpu'bogh Duj
    */The ship which evaded me chases me./

Bad:

    *mutlha' DujDaq jIjunpu'bogh
    */The ship in which I evaded chases me. /(NOT ALLOWED)

But the following works fine, because the head noun, though a locative 
for the main clause, is still just the object of the relative clause:

    *DujDaq vIjunpu'bogh jIghoq
    */I spy aboard the ship which evaded me./

-- 
SuStel
http://trimboli.name

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.kli.org/pipermail/tlhingan-hol-kli.org/attachments/20190627/c9d58c52/attachment.html>


More information about the tlhIngan-Hol mailing list