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

[SuStel]

On 2/3/2022 10:54 AM, Will Martin wrote:
> {-Daq} and other Type 5 suffixed nouns are fine in Relative Clauses or 
> in Main Clauses that have embedded Relative Clauses, so long as the 
> Head Noun doesn’t have the Type 5 suffix with the intent of making 
> that Head Noun other than subject or object of the Relative Clause. 
> That’s the specific “ship in which I fled” problem, a.k.a. the “Cat in 
> the Hat” problem, or the “Elephant in my pajamas” problem.

Well, the "Cat in the Hat" problem and the "elephant in my pajamas" 
problem are different things than the "ship in which I fled" problem.

I know that Krankor used to claim that *mIvDaq yIH* could be used for 
/cat in the hat,/ allowing for helmets to equal hats and tribbles to 
equal cats because we had neither /TalkNow!/ nor the word *vIghro'* when 
he wrote that. But this violates the rule that you can't have a type 5 
suffix on the first noun of a noun-noun construction, which this 
definitely is. So to me, the "Cat in the Hat problem" is this violation 
of that rule, and the solution is simple: *mIv tuQbogh yIH* (or *mIv 
tuQbogh vIghro'* for something a little closer to the original).

The "elephant in my pajamas" problem is simply one of ambiguity, and it 
hasn't got anything to do with grammatical errors. Okrand's own example 
of this (http://klingonska.org/canon/1995-06-holqed-04-2-a.txt) is 
*DujDaq puq DaqIppu'bogh vIlegh,* which can mean that either the child 
who hit you on the ship is whom I see or on the ship I see the child who 
hit you. It's unclear whether the locative belongs to the relative 
clause or not, but in neither interpretation is the locative being used 
as the head noun. That's not the issue with "elephant in my pajamas."

-- 
SuStel
http://trimboli.name
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.kli.org/pipermail/tlhingan-hol-kli.org/attachments/20220203/c6157c2a/attachment-0002.htm>