[tlhIngan Hol] Noun-noun constructions with relative clauses

[Will Martin]

We have already answered this several times.

What is a Relative Clause? It is basically a complete sentence unto itself, which we add {-bogh} to and then encapsulate it into a second sentence so that the Head Noun of the Relative Clause is also acting as a noun in the Main Clause. It is never wrong to simply not add {-bogh} and make that Relative Clause a separate sentence, using outside-of-grammar context/proximity to identify the head noun as the same entity in both sentences.

Fred sees Sally. I previously owned Sally’s book.

My style of writing doesn’t justify an insistence that in all languages, I can say in one sentence, “I previously owned the book which is now owned by Sally, whom Fred sees.”

In Klingon the pair of separate sentences is acceptable style. Your objection to this obvious solution to your specific problem is not Somebody Else’s Problem. It’s your problem.

If you argue that as a matter of style, the language needs to bend to your will so that you can do this thing that obviously has problems when done your way, then you should recognize that you don’t have an appropriate writing style for the language. You could adopt an appropriate style, but your alien-to-Klingon style is more important to you than any interest in learning how to write clearly in Klingon.

The odd thing, from my perspective, is that anyone could become as obviously skilled with the language as you are, yet insist on using the wrong grammar to express an idea.

> On Nov 9, 2021, at 7:47 AM, mayqel qunen'oS <mihkoun at gmail.com> wrote:
> 
> SuStel:
>> Using -'e' on the head noun of a relative clause is entirely
>> optional, so if it's blocked by some other rule, just don't use an -'e'.
> 
> There's something strange in all this. Let's take the original example
> {DaH be' leghtaHbogh loD paq}, flush {DaH} down the toilet, and assume
> we want to say "the book of the woman who is seen by the man".
> 
> It's wrong to place an {-'e'} on the first noun, so we obviously can't
> write {DaH be''e' leghtaHbogh loD paq}, because that would mean "the
> woman who is seen by the book of the man". And we can't place the
> {-'e'} on the first noun of a {-bogh} phrase because the rules of
> grammar forbid it.
> 
> On the other hand though, the rules of grammar don't forbid us to
> understand "the book of the woman who is seen by the man", if we just
> write the {-bogh} phrase without the {-'e'} on the {be'}.
> 
> So, to get to the point (or to "get to the roast" as we say in Greece)..
> 
> Isn't it strange that the rules of grammar forbid us to write
> something, which at the same time these same rules allow us to
> understand?
> 
> -- 
> Dana'an
> https://sacredtextsinklingon.wordpress.com/
> Ζεὺς ἦν, Ζεὺς ἐστίν, Ζεὺς ἔσσεται· ὦ μεγάλε Ζεῦ
> _______________________________________________
> tlhIngan-Hol mailing list
> tlhIngan-Hol at lists.kli.org
> http://lists.kli.org/listinfo.cgi/tlhingan-hol-kli.org