[tlhIngan Hol] subject of the -bogh clause of a sao being the subject of another verb

[SuStel]

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 
"sentence."

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 
can't happen.


> 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.

Says who?


> 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.


Nope.


-- 
SuStel
http://trimboli.name

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.kli.org/pipermail/tlhingan-hol-kli.org/attachments/20200728/4cbe496c/attachment-0015.htm>