<div dir="ltr">SIbI' jIjangbe' 'e' vIpay 'a qaStaHvIS wej jajvam Seng vIDIghtaH.<br><br><div><br></div><div><div style="margin-left:40px">jIjatlh:<span></span><span><br><br></span></div><div style="margin-left:40px"><div style="margin-left:40px"><span>the locative (or for that matter causative) noun of the
relative clause can be the object of the main clause, couldn't
it be the subject as well? Then one could say <b>Saq DujDaq
jIHaw'bogh</b> <i>The ship on which I fled landed</i>. What
do you make of this?</span><br></div></div><div style="margin-left:40px"><span><blockquote type="cite">
</blockquote></span></div><div class="gmail_extra"><div class="gmail_quote"><div text="#000000" bgcolor="#FFFFFF" style="margin-left:40px"><span>
</span></div><div style="margin-left:40px"><br>jatlh SuStel:<br></div><div text="#000000" bgcolor="#FFFFFF" style="margin-left:80px"><p>If this were correct, then yes, it could do that.</p><p><br></p></div><div text="#000000" bgcolor="#FFFFFF"><p>This reverses the peculiarity of <b>meQtaHbogh qachDaq Suv qoH neH</b> in which a noun with a Type 5 suffix other than <b>-'e'</b> can be the subject of a verb+<b>bogh</b>. I don't expect anyone to feel particularly comfortable with this, though that doesn't argue against it.</p><p><br></p></div><div style="margin-left:40px">jIjatlh: <br></div></div><div class="gmail_quote"><div text="#000000" bgcolor="#FFFFFF"><span>
<blockquote type="cite">
</blockquote></span></div><div style="margin-left:80px"><span><div>
I see another major problem, besides the main verb being
able to "see" into the relative clause, and one which is not
totally unrelated to the problem of whether a preceding
modifier acts on a relative clause preceding the main clause
or on the main clause. (Example: <b>vengDaq jIlwI' ghaHpu'
loD'e' vIlegh</b> Does it mean <i>I saw the man who had
been my neighbor in the city</i> or <i>In the city, I saw
the man who had been my neighbor</i>?) The example you use
has only one possible candidate for head noun. If there's only
one candidate for head noun, it could conceivably fill some
other slot in the main clause, but if there are more than one,
which gets priority? (Alan's post I referred to above suggests
a way around this dilemma in at least some cases.)</div></span></div><br><div style="margin-left:40px"><span></span>jatlh SuStel: <br></div><div text="#000000" bgcolor="#FFFFFF"><span></span></div><div text="#000000" bgcolor="#FFFFFF" style="margin-left:40px"><span></span></div><div text="#000000" bgcolor="#FFFFFF" style="margin-left:80px"><p>You forgot the <b>-bogh</b> in the example. This is a poor
example, because as a "to be" sentence the final noun requires an
<b>-'e',</b> automatically making it the head noun. You have no
choice.</p><p><br></p></div><div>HIvqa' veqlargh!<br><br><br></div><div text="#000000" bgcolor="#FFFFFF"><div style="margin-left:40px">jatlh SuStel:<br><br></div><div style="margin-left:40px"><div style="margin-left:40px">A more interesting example would be how to say <i>I see the ship
in which the captain fled.</i> If you try <b>DujDaq Haw'pu'bogh
HoD vIlegh,</b> how would you know that <b>DujDaq,</b> and not
<b>HoD,</b> is supposed to be the head noun? You wouldn't.<br><br></div></div><br>
<span></span></div><span>And head nouns are normally subjects and objects, so in the above I'd assume the speaker sees the captain. Changing the above to <b>DujDaq Haw'pu'bogh
HoD vI'or</b> causes <b>HoD</b> to make no sense as the head noun, but on the other hand, why should the identification of head noun depend on the wording and not on sentence construction? So I would not expect that to be the way to say "I pilot the ship the captain fled in." It should always to be possible to construct a sentence with a relative clause so that the head noun is clearly indicated, even if all the all the root words are blanked out.<br><br></span></div><div class="gmail_quote"><span>The more unusual relative clauses in Klingon (canon or speculative) remind me of nonstandard relative clauses in some English dialects, e.g. "He left the shop to his son, which all he wanted was drink." This makes me envision a relative clause as an appended sentence with <b>-bogh</b>, but of course why bother with the <b>-bogh</b>? Just tack a short sentence on, as you have suggested.<br></span></div><div class="gmail_quote"><span><br></span></div><div class="gmail_quote"><span>Your example in which you translate the first sentence of War of the Worlds illustrates that there is no need to translate sentence-for-sentence, though I don't understand your use of <b>Dor</b> in
<b>DIS
poH wa'maH Hut Dor</b>
"in the last years of the nineteenth century;" I'd say <b>DortaHvIS DIS poH wa'maH Hut</b>.<br><br><br></span></div><div class="gmail_quote" style="margin-left:40px"><span>jIjatlh:<br></span></div><div class="gmail_quote"><span></span><span><br></span><div style="margin-left:40px"><div style="margin-left:40px"><span>Lastly, (and I am confident that you won't like this, so
please do not let this derail the thread) but your argument
that a noun can have another syntactic role in the main clause
because it's the only candidate for head noun of a relative
clause reminds me of an argument I made for the combination of
{-lu'} and {-wI'} to nominalize on the object because it is
the only candidate, the subject being pointedly moot.<br></span><span></span><span></span><br></div></div><div style="margin-left:40px"><span></span></div></div><div class="gmail_quote" style="margin-left:40px"><span>jatlh SuStel:<br><br></span></div><div class="gmail_quote"><div style="margin-left:80px"><span></span>My argument is not that the locative noun of the relative clause
must be the head noun because no other noun can be; my argument is
that the locative noun can be RECOGNIZED as the head noun because
there is no other noun distracting you from that conclusion. You
have to first accept the notion that some noun other than the
subject or object of the relative clause can be the head noun.<span></span></div><div text="#000000" bgcolor="#FFFFFF"><br><div style="margin-left:80px">I don't accept the argument that <b>-lu'</b> + <b>-wI'</b> must
nominalize the object because there's no subject available. <b>-wI'</b>
never nominalizes the object. There is no rule, no example, that
supports any evidence at all that <b>-wI'</b> can nominalize
objects. IF there were such a rule, then I might consider the idea
that, lacking a subject, it would nominalize the object. But there
is no such rule, and no evidence that any such rule exists.<span class="m_-5163904831742937909m_186336900498264802HOEnZb"></span><br></div><div style="margin-left:40px"><span class="m_-5163904831742937909m_186336900498264802HOEnZb"></span></div><span class="m_-5163904831742937909m_186336900498264802HOEnZb"><font color="#888888"><br><br></font></span></div><div>I agree wholeheartedly that the evidence does not lead to the conclusion that
<b>-lu'</b> + <b>-wI'</b>
nominalizes the object. I merely like the idea, since it would be handy.<br>If it were a horse race, I'd put my $2 down on it, but for all I know, someone else might win big betting on the longshot <i>one who does ___ while wearing a pink tutu</i>.<br><br></div><div>~mIp'av<br></div></div></div></div></div>