[tlhIngan Hol] prefix trick on -bogh clauses

[Will Martin]

Yep. Internally, it’s a verb clause. Externally, it’s a noun phrase. English links them with a special pronoun. Klingon links them with a special verb suffix. It’s interesting to see how differently the two languages can accomplish the same meaning.

It’s really one sentence encapsulated within another, with the internal one specifying or describing a noun, which has its own role in the outer sentence.

charghwI’ vaghnerya’ngan

rInpa’ bomnIS be’’a’ pI’.




> On Oct 27, 2020, at 11:24 AM, SuStel <sustel at trimboli.name> wrote:
> 
> On 10/27/2020 9:42 AM, mayqel qunen'oS wrote:
>> ngeb maHvaD vIqraq Danobpu'bogh
>> the artifact which you gave for us is fake
>> 
>> lugh'a' mu'tlheghvam ?
> HIja'.
> 
> Dependent clauses have the same grammar as basic sentences. maHvaD vIqraq Danobpu'bogh the artifact which you gave us is a valid relative clause, and as with all relative clauses, it may be treated as if it were a noun phrase.
> 
> -- 
> SuStel
> http://trimboli.name <http://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/20201027/9e8b925e/attachment.htm>