[tlhIngan Hol] subject of the -bogh clause of a sao being the subject of another verb
sustel at trimboli.name
Tue Jul 28 07:42:29 PDT 2020
On 7/28/2020 10:16 AM, Will Martin wrote:
> To offer a slightly more specific critique: A relative clause is not a
> sentence. It’s a noun phrase. As such, it can’t be the second sentence
> in a Sentence As Object (SAO) construction.
I specifically did not give this response because it doesn't hold up
given other areas of Klingon grammar.
More than once we've learned that where Okrand says /sentence/ he really
means /verbal clause. /He says that conjunctions join sentences, but he
also uses them between dependent verbal clauses a lot. He says that
subjects and objects go on sentences, but they also go on dependent
verbal clauses of all types.
Furthermore, Okrand himself has used *'e'* as the object of a
non-sentence, in /paq'batlh:/
*qeylIS Qaw' 'e' nIDmeH
yerDaj weH molor
'ej juH qachDaj meQmoH
/Molor did not destroy Kahless
By burning his house
Or ravaging his lands./
(The translation is not literal. The next line starts "Instead, by doing
so..." meaning the emphasis should be that Molor /tried/ to destroy
Kahless by raiding and burning.)
This stanza has a sentence-as-object construction, *qeylIS Qaw' 'e'
nIDmeH,* in which the second "sentence" is a purpose clause.
Only a few lines later there's another one:
*Hoch qInmoH mu'meyDaj
ghob 'agh 'ej val
yIntaH 'e' luleghmo' chaH mer*
/All were bemused by his words,
Wise and full of spirit,
And astonished to see him alive./
Here, the sentence-as-object, *yIntaH 'e' luleghmo' chaH*/because they
saw that he was still alive,/ has a subordinate clause as its second
We get still more (I'll give shortened versions):
*watlh 'Iwraj 'e' lu'aghmo' nuHmey jej*
*jatlh 'e' mevDI' qeylIS*
*bImej 'e' vIchaw'mo'*
*SoHvaD quvwI' qem Hegh 'e' wIvDI' Hegh*
*pop Hevchugh quvwI' 'ej 'e' DaqaSmoHchugh
*(Simultaneously demonstrates conjoining subordinate clauses!)
*jatlh 'e' mevDI' nuvpu'*
*'qa' qo'Daq paw chaH 'e' maqmeH*
*Suv 'e' mevDI'*
and best of all...
*veqlarghvo' narghbogh loD
chutDaj bIv 'e' ngIlbogh loD
DaH pongDaj Sov qotar*
/Now Kotar has the name
Of the one who eluded Fek'lhr
And dared to defy his rules./
...which is an example of the very kind of relative clause that you said
> If it worked (and it doesn’t), then the word order would have to be
> (and keep in mind, this is not grammatically correct but merely a step
> closer to being grammatically correct in order to show why the whole
> idea doesn’t work):
> Dun [Qap yuQDaj ‘e’ tulbogh nuv].
This /is/ grammatical and is the correct formation for what he tried to say.
> It doesn’t work because you can’t have the first sentence in SAO
> contained within the second sentence. It’s not a “Sentence As Object”.
> It’s a “Sentence As Object Within Another Sentence”, which is not a
> valid grammatical construction in Klingon.
> In general, a Type 9 suffix on either main verb in SAO should set off
> alarms, since the addition of Type 9 suffix turns the verb into
> something functionally different from a main verb, and SAO requires
> two main verbs.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the tlhIngan-Hol