[tlhIngan Hol] {-bogh} {-bogh}'ed nouns and {-taHvIS}

SuStel sustel at trimboli.name
Tue Mar 15 07:04:50 PDT 2022

On 3/15/2022 9:49 AM, mayqel qunen'oS wrote:
> jIH:
> > boghmoHtaHvIS be'pu' Qanbogh Qun'e'
> SuStel:
> > I suspect you're also imagining the be'pu'
> > as both the subject of boghmoHtaHvIS
> > and the object of Qanbogh. it can only be
> > one, and the other has to be an elided
> > chaH.
> Yes, that was my intention exactly! But why can't it be both the 
> subject of {boghmoHtaHvIS} and the object of {Qanbogh}? Is there any 
> rule which forbids it?

Because *-vIS* verbs don't have head nouns and can't be turned into noun 
phrases the way relative clauses can.

Here is a phrase that CANNOT be a noun phrase: *boghmoHtaHvIS be'pu'.* 
That's not a noun phrase; it's only a subordinate clause. So since 
*boghmoHtaHvIS be'pu'* is not a noun phrase, it cannot be the object of 
*Qonbogh Qun'e'.* If it is not the object, it must be atttached to the 
relative clause as a subordinate clause.

So the only question is, is *be'pu'* the subject of *boghmoHtaHvIS,* or 
is it the object of *Qanbogh?*

*[boghmoHtaHvIS be'pu'] Qanbogh Qun'e'*/god who protects (them?), while 
women are giving birth/

*boghmoHtaHvIS [be'pu' Qanbogh Qun'e']*/god who protects women, while 
they are giving birth/

The second one sounds more correct in English, but this is partly just 
an effect of the order in which the nouns and pronouns appear. It's the 
other way around in Klingon, so the second one might not seem as natural 
as the first.

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.kli.org/pipermail/tlhingan-hol-kli.org/attachments/20220315/de429e1a/attachment-0003.htm>

More information about the tlhIngan-Hol mailing list