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

[SuStel]

On 6/27/2019 1:44 PM, terrence.donnelly at sbcglobal.net wrote:
> Apparently the understanding of this has gotten considerably more 
> elastic since the last time I checked in.

I have always understood it as I described it, and I've heard others 
understand it that way too. It's described this way on the KAG's wiki 
<https://www.kag.org/wiki/Klingon_Grammar_Addenda_Commentary#6.2.3._Relative_clauses>, 
for instance. Lawrence's question was pitched specifically to address 
the ship-in-which-I-fled problem.


> 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.

Except they don't have to be unmarked. Leaving aside *-'e',* which I've 
said doesn't really act like a syntactic suffix when it's used as 
emphasis, it's perfectly legal, though redundant, to use a 
locative-marked noun as the object of a verb whose meaning is inherently 
locative, as in the canonical sentence *bIQtIqDaq vIjaH* for /I'm going 
to the river./

Now, there probably aren't any verbs that let you use *-mo'* or *-vaD* 
as subject or object, but this is because no verbs have arguments that 
are inherently causes or beneficiaries, so far as we know, not because 
putting them on verb arguments is illegal per se.


> 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?

We have *yIntaHbogh nuvpu'Daq HItlhej*/Come with me to the living/ in 
/paq'batlh./ The subject of *yIntaHbogh* is marked as a locative.

/paq'batlh/ also gives us *'ej Hoch vengHomDaq Hoch vengDaq je / 
Suchbogh ghaH**qeylIS luQoy*/And Kahless spoke to them / In every 
village and city he went./ In this one the object of *Suchbogh* is a 
double locative noun-noun, *Hoch vengHomDaq Hoch vengDaq je.* Those are 
not locatives of the verb *Such,* because Kahless did not visit people 
in general while in those places; he visited those places. I could see, 
however, how this one might be a little more ambiguous.

It has *chalqachlIj rachlu'ta'bogh tutDaq / mol'egh betleH*/The bat'leth 
sunk into the post / Of your fortified tower./ *tutDaq* is the subject 
and head noun of the relative clause, which is itself a locative of the 
main clause.

Skybox 99 has *qIb HeHDaq, 'u' SepmeyDaq Sovbe'lu'bogh lenglu'meH He 
ghoSlu'bogh retlhDaq 'oHtaH.* The relative clause *'u' SepmeyDaq 
Sovbe'lu'bogh*/unknown regions of the universe/ has *'u' SepmeyDaq* as 
its object, and it's a locative of the main clause.

TKW has *loghDaq Suvrupbogh SuvwI'pu' chaH Hoch SuvwI'pu''e'*/In space, 
all warriors are cold warriors./ *loghDaq* /in space /is the object of 
*Suvrupbogh*/who are ready to fight,/ and the relative clause is a 
locative of the main clause.

I haven't done an exhaustive search, but that's already quite a lot of 
evidence, and some of it is quite old.

*vaj yIlop! SaH pab DaneHbogh!*

-- 
SuStel
http://trimboli.name

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.kli.org/pipermail/tlhingan-hol-kli.org/attachments/20190627/29f824a4/attachment-0002.htm>