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

terrence.donnelly at sbcglobal.net terrence.donnelly at sbcglobal.net
Thu Jun 27 10:44:16 PDT 2019


 Apparently the understanding of this has gotten considerably more elastic since the last time I checked in. What I understood from Okrand's statement was that the head noun of the relative clause (which could be the subject or the object) can only be the subject or object of the main verb as well, due to the intrinsic nature of Klingon. That is, subjects and objects in Klingon are unmarked, and that holds true for nouns in a relative phrase, also. Any other nouns in the phrase (not in a N1-N2 construction or a timestamp) require a suffix and are therefore marked. For either of those nouns in a relative phrase to take a Type-5 suffix, they would simultaneously be both marked and unmarked. I don't think Okrand could figure out how that would work, and neither can I. 

Believe me, I have long and fervently wished you could use Type-5s on nouns in a relative phrase (and probably did it a time or two), but I no longer think it is possible.

Your last example just reads to me "I am on a ship spying on (something) I am evading." I don't believe that {Duj} can simultaneously be a locative with {-Daq} and the object of {jun}. Is there canon that supports this?

ter'eS
     On Thursday, June 27, 2019, 8:39:48 AM CDT, SuStel <sustel at trimboli.name> wrote:  
 
   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.
 
 
 -- SuStelhttp://trimboli.name _______________________________________________
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/20190627/ab708185/attachment.html>


More information about the tlhIngan-Hol mailing list