[tlhIngan Hol] {-Daq} and {-bogh} and {Sumbogh} and {Hopbogh}

[Will Martin]

While it could be the case that you’ve discovered “bad canon”, it equally could be the case that you’ve found what is simply evidence disproving the reasonable assumptions we made from other canon about the limits of the use of {-Daq} or other Type 5 noun suffixes in Relative Clauses.

In either case, I continue to suggest that if you want people to understand you, it is simple and easy to make the Relative Clause a separate sentence, rather than make the reader/listener pause to make repeated attempts to parse what you’ve written until they dial in the version that makes the most sense.

If you don’t care whether or not you are understood and prefer to prove your grammatical prowess by constructing dense prose that people can figure out if they spend enough time studying it, then go for it. By now, you may have noticed that paq’batlh is jam-packed full of dense prose that people can figure out if they spend enough time studying it. If Okrand can do it, why not you? Right?

pItlh

charghwI’ ‘utlh
(ghaH, ghaH, -Daj)




> On Feb 3, 2022, at 7:35 AM, mayqel qunen'oS <mihkoun at gmail.com> wrote:
> 
> This thread is slowly but steadily turning into a nightmare.
> 
> SuStel:
>> Yes, you can use other type 5 suffixes on the head noun,
>> provided those suffixes apply in the main sentence, not the relative clause.
> 
> I found this from the paq'batlh:
> 
>> vaj matlhutlhjaj
>> ghe'torDaq ghaHtaHbogh vavwI' wIquvmoHjaj
>> Heghbogh loDnI'wI' wIquvmoHjaj!
>> Let us drink then
>> To my father in Gre'thor
>> And the brother I once had.
> 
> Here the {-Daq} obviously refers to the {ghaHtaHbogh vavwI'}. (there's
> an {-'e'} missing from the {vavwI'}, but that's not the problem right
> now).
> 
> The way I understand what's being said in this thread so far, is that
> the translation of {ghe'torDaq ghaHtaHbogh vavwI' wIquvmoHjaj} isn't
> "may we honor my father who's in hell", but rather "may we honor in
> hell, my father who's somewhere unspecified". I get the meaning that
> the speaker says "we're in hell, and with us being there, may we honor
> my father who's somewhere unspecified".
> 
> Also again from the paq'batlh:
> 
>> qeylISvaD jach 'ej beyDaj luqImmo'
>> yuQDaq ghaHtaHbogh Hoch tlhIngan'e'
>> Qomqa' Hoch Qo'noS nuvpu'
>> All of Kronos trembled once more,
>> For every Klingon on the planet
>> Followed her cry for Kahless.
> 
> Again here the {-Daq} refers to the {ghaHtaHbogh Hoch tlhIngan'e'},
> although I'm not quite sure how this entire line is supposed to fit in
> with the lines above and below it.
> 
> With all these being said, returning to the original sentence..
> 
> qa'naDa'Daq Sumbogh 'amerI'qa' mIl'oDmey tu'lu'
> at canada where america is near there are bears
> 
> I still can't see why one alternate translation couldn't be as well
> "At Canada which is being neared by America there are bears". Yes, the
> English translation is weird. But I was under the impression, that in
> a {-bogh} clause the head noun can be marked not only by an {-'e'} but
> by other type-5 suffixes too. I don't know if this impression of mine
> is actually correct, but perhaps this impression is the root of my
> misunderstanding.
> 
> --
> 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

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.kli.org/pipermail/tlhingan-hol-kli.org/attachments/20220203/9a996997/attachment-0002.htm>