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

De'vID de.vid.jonpin at gmail.com
Thu Jun 27 11:22:15 PDT 2019


On Thu, Jun 27, 2019, 19:44 , <terrence.donnelly at sbcglobal.net> wrote:

> 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?
>
{'u' SepmeyDaq Sovbe'lu'bogh lenglu'meH He ghoSlu'bogh retlhDaq 'oHtaH}
(SkyBox 99)

{Sepmey} is the object of {Sovbe'lu'} and has a type 5 suffix {-Daq}.

{leng} is special in that its object can take {-Daq}, so {'u' SepmeyDaq
Sovbe'lu'bogh} could be either the object of {leng} or a locative, but in
either case it's an example of a noun with {-Daq} being the object of a
verb with {-bogh}.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.kli.org/pipermail/tlhingan-hol-kli.org/attachments/20190627/1d23856a/attachment.html>


More information about the tlhIngan-Hol mailing list