[tlhIngan Hol] combining {-meH} and {-bogh} on {-meH}'ed and {-bogh}'ed nouns

SuStel sustel at trimboli.name
Wed Apr 27 06:04:22 PDT 2022

On 4/27/2022 8:21 AM, D qunen'oS wrote:
> SuStel:
>> You can make a noun that participates in both a relative cause
>> and a purpose clause, but I don't believe you can 'ej them.
>> You can't say, for instance, nepbogh 'ej tojmeH which lies and for deceiving.
> But saying {nepbogh 'ej tojmeH mu'mey} isn't somehow equivalent to the {romuluSngan Sambogh 'ej HoHbogh nejwI'} "romulan hunter-killer probe"? If the {nepbogh 'ej tojbogh mu'mey} is correct, then why would the {nepbogh 'ej tojmeH mu'mey} be any different? We just substitute one type-9 with another.

Relative clauses and purpose clauses work in entirely different ways for 
entirely different purposes. It's not just a case of saying "Eh, one 
type 9 suffix is just like every other!"

In English, there is a formal, but not always observed, rule that when 
you conjoin words or phrases, they should be of like kind, such that one 
could syntactically substitute for the other without change. It's 
correct to say /if I see you and if I recognize you/ (two conditional 
clauses), but it's not correct to say /if I see you and while I am 
eating/ (a conditional clause and a while-clause). It's correct to say 
/apples and pears/ (two nouns) but not correct to say /apples and happy/ 
(a noun and an adjective). And so on. In all of canon, I believe Klingon 
has followed a similar rule, or at least we haven't seen a contradiction 
that I can remember. So besides not being a simple conjoining of similar 
type 9 verbs, trying to conjoin dissimilar clauses like this sets off 
alarm bells for me.

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.kli.org/pipermail/tlhingan-hol-kli.org/attachments/20220427/7f659165/attachment-0003.htm>

More information about the tlhIngan-Hol mailing list