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

mayqel qunen'oS mihkoun at gmail.com
Fri Feb 4 06:29:48 PST 2022

Thank you SuStel for taking the time and having the patience to
explain all this. I realize that trying to explain complex grammar to
someone who doesn't understand grammar terms, can not only be
time-consuming, but it can perhaps become frustrating/irritating too;
so thanks for your patience.

Luckily, the time you spent explaining all this didn't go to waste,
since (finally) I understood this matter. But before moving on, I'd
like to add some thoughts on this matter, as if explaining to myself
when he reads this thread in the future what's going on, and doing so
in simple words, since I've been never able to learn grammar (not even
when I was learning English).


Some time earlier I asked about something you wrote:

> Therefore, it is not possible to construct a relative clause like DujDaq jIHaw'pu'bogh
> ship in which I fled because the head noun is not subject or object of the main clause
> and we know that Duj is your intended head noun because it is the noun that fits into
> the main sentence: Duj vIleghpu' I saw the ship.
> Did you mean to write "because the head noun is not subject or object
> of the relative clause" instead of "because the head noun is not
> subject or object of the main clause"?

I realize now that I was wrong to ask, misunderstanding what you
meant. The meaning of the example sentence was "I've seen the ship on
which I fled", and the discussion was about whether writing {DujDaq
jIHaw'pu'bogh vIleghpu'} would be correct. So when you wrote "because
the head noun is not subject or object of the main clause" you indeed
meant that the {DujDaq} isn't the object of the {vIleghpu'}. And since
I know that sometime in the future I may wonder "and why can't the
{DujDaq} be the object of the {vIleghpu'}?", I'll answer now to my
future self saying "the {DujDaq} can't be the object of the
{vIleghpu'} simply because it's wrong to say {DujDaq vIleghpu'} for 'I
see the ship'". And because it's wrong to say "{DujDaq vIleghpu'} for
'I see the ship'", the head noun {Duj} can't be the object of the main
clause {vIleghpu'}. "And why is the {Duj} the head noun?" Because the
{Duj} is the thing you're trying to say that you saw.

My future self may ask me the following:

tuch jIH:
> So is the "ship where I fled" matter something which needs to be avoided
> because it produces ambiguity, or is it something which must not be done
> because the resulting sentence is grammatically wrong?

The answer is that it's something which must not be done, because it's
grammatically wrong.

tuch jIH:
> In the "ship where I fled" sentence, the {-Daq}'ed noun is at the beginning of the sentence;
> would it be any different/would the sentence become grammatically correct, if the {-Daq}'ed
> noun came after the verb of the ovs? Would it be correct to write {Qaw'pu' DujDaq jIHaw'pu'bogh}
> for "the ship where I fled has been destroyed"?

The answer is "no" because it's grammatically wrong to say {Qaw'pu'
DujDaq}. In the {Qaw'pu' DujDaq jIHaw'pu'bogh} the {DujDaq} can't be
the subject of {Qaw'pu'}.

tuch jIH:
> Read this Ca'Non sentence: {'u' SepmeyDaq Sovbe'lu'bogh lenglu'meH
> He ghoSlu'bogh retlhDaq 'oHtaH} (Skybox 99). Is there a simple way to
> understand why the {'u' SepmeyDaq Sovbe'lu'bogh lenglu'meH} is
> grammatically correct? How is it any different from the {DujDaq jIHaw'pu'bogh vIleghpu'}?

Because you moron, in the {'u' SepmeyDaq Sovbe'lu'bogh lenglu'meH} the
{'u' SepmeyDaq Sovbe'lu'bogh} is a {-bogh}'ed noun at which a {-Daq}
is applied, and then this {-bogh}'ed noun becomes the object of the
{lenglu'meH}. At the "ship where I fled" the {DujDaq jIHaw'pu'bogh}
isn't a {-bogh}'ed noun.

tuch jIH:
> Yes but in the paq'batlh examples, of {ghe'torDaq ghaHtaHbogh vavwI'
> wIquvmoHjaj} and {qeylISvaD jach 'ej beyDaj luqImmo' yuQDaq ghaHtaHbogh
> Hoch tlhIngan'e'}, the {-bogh}'ed nouns are {ghaHtaHbogh vavwI'} and
> {ghaHtaHbogh Hoch tlhIngan'e'} respectively. The locative marked by {-Daq}
> isn't the subject or object of the {-bogh} clause.

True, but the locative comes before the {-bogh} baby sentence whose
last element {vavwI'}/{Hoch tlhIngan'e'} is the head noun of the
relative clause, marked by the {-'e'}, which in turn is the object and
subject of the main sentence respectively. That's what SuStel meant by
saying "The head noun of a relative clause must be the subject or
object of the clause, and the head noun must be the noun that fits
into the main sentence".

tuch jIH:
> Even so, in the {ghe'torDaq ghaHtaHbogh vavwI' wIquvmoHjaj} the {ghe'torDaq}
> isn't the object of the {-bogh} clause. So why can't this mean as well "may we honor
> in hell, my father who's somewhere unspecified", as in "we're in hell, and with us being
> there, may we honor my father who's somewhere unspecified"

Because it's not a {-bogh} phrase with a "regular" verb, but a {-bogh}
phrase with a pronoun. It's a special construction of how to say "I'm
in a place". Perhaps it makes no sense saying that someone is
somewhere unspecified, so there's no other way this is allowed to be
understood, and perhaps the thing which is actually happening in a
{XDaq ghaHtaH Y'e'} construction hasn't been completely clarified.
Perhaps 'oqranD chose to allow this, because there's no sense in
understanding "may we honor in hell, my father who's somewhere
unspecified", or perhaps 'oqranD believes that in an {XDaq ghaHtaH
Y'e'} construction there always needs to be an {XDaq} applying to the
construction in question, even if we had the {-bogh} version of {XDaq
ghaHtaHbogh Y'e'} with a sentence following where the {XDaq} could
alternatively be applied.

Learn it as an exception, and in the long run, maltz said so, so shut
up and don't ask. Take it on faith.

tuch jIH:
> Read again the Ca'Non sentence: {qeylISvaD jach 'ej beyDaj luqImmo'
> yuQDaq ghaHtaHbogh Hoch tlhIngan'e'}. Don't you see something strange?

Yes, the {lu-} on the {luqImmo'} is wrong. That doesn't change
anything regarding the "ship where I fled" problem which is being

And finally some words of advice to my future self..

The confusion started because you took the English "at canada where
america is near", you translated it as {qa'naDa'Daq Sumbogh
'amerI'qa'}, and then tried to justify this choice by tkd's "Relative
clauses are translated into English as phrases beginning with <who,
which, where> and most commonly <that>". But as De'vID wrote:

> Translating {-bogh} as "where" is fine, if that's appropriate.
> For example, {veng vIDabbogh} "the city where I live".

As you see, the "where" meaning of {-bogh} can be applied when the
word preceding the {-bogh} phrase is it's object as well. So the only
way you could say "at canada where america is near", is by writing
{qa'naDa'Daq Sumbogh 'amerI'qa'}, but only if the {Sum} could take the
{qa'naDa'Daq} as its' object. But {Sum} doesn't work that way. Here's
where the whole confusion started.

So, that's it! I got a serious headache writing all this, but since
finally I understand, it was all worth it. All's well that ends well.

Also I'd like to say to my future self "I wish I knew now, what you
know then", as captain Janeway would say, but that's another matter

Ζεὺς ἦν, Ζεὺς ἐστίν, Ζεὺς ἔσσεται· ὦ μεγάλε Ζεῦ

More information about the tlhIngan-Hol mailing list