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

[De'vID]

On Tue, 1 Feb 2022 at 14:02, mayqel qunen'oS <mihkoun at gmail.com> wrote:

> Suppose I want to say: "At Canada there are bears. Near Canada is
> America". And I want to say all this in a single sentence. So I write:
>
> qa'naDa'Daq Sumbogh 'amerI'qa' mIl'oDmey tu'lu'
> at canada where america is near there are bears
>

Without knowing your intent, reading the Klingon sentence, I would
interpret it as "There are American-bears nearby (in) Canada". That is,
there are things called "America bears", and ones which are near Canada are
being observed or noticed.

Would this be correct? Or is this "the ship on which I fled" problem?
>

Or the "Canada in which bears are observed" problem.


> Perhaps, translating the {-bogh} as "where" seems weird, but in tkd it
> says that "Relative clauses are translated into English as phrases
> beginning with <who, which, where> and most commonly <that>"
>

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

-- 
De'vID
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.kli.org/pipermail/tlhingan-hol-kli.org/attachments/20220201/f724a555/attachment-0016.htm>