<html>
<head>
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=UTF-8">
</head>
<body text="#000000" bgcolor="#FFFFFF">
<div class="moz-cite-prefix">On 6/27/2019 1:44 PM,
<a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:terrence.donnelly@sbcglobal.net">terrence.donnelly@sbcglobal.net</a> wrote:<br>
</div>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:1347393184.600510.1561657456683@mail.yahoo.com">Apparently
the understanding of this has gotten considerably more elastic
since the last time I checked in.</blockquote>
<p>I have always understood it as I described it, and I've heard
others understand it that way too. It's described this way on the
<a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="https://www.kag.org/wiki/Klingon_Grammar_Addenda_Commentary#6.2.3._Relative_clauses">KAG's
wiki</a>, for instance. Lawrence's question was pitched
specifically to address the ship-in-which-I-fled problem.<br>
</p>
<p><br>
</p>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:1347393184.600510.1561657456683@mail.yahoo.com"> What I
understood from Okrand's statement was that the head noun of the
relative clause (which could be the subject or the object) can
only be the subject or object of the main verb as well, due to the
intrinsic nature of Klingon. That is, subjects and objects in
Klingon are unmarked, and that holds true for nouns in a relative
phrase, also.</blockquote>
<p>Except they don't have to be unmarked. Leaving aside <b>-'e',</b>
which I've said doesn't really act like a syntactic suffix when
it's used as emphasis, it's perfectly legal, though redundant, to
use a locative-marked noun as the object of a verb whose meaning
is inherently locative, as in the canonical sentence <b>bIQtIqDaq
vIjaH</b> for <i>I'm going to the river.</i></p>
<p>Now, there probably aren't any verbs that let you use <b>-mo'</b>
or <b>-vaD</b> as subject or object, but this is because no verbs
have arguments that are inherently causes or beneficiaries, so far
as we know, not because putting them on verb arguments is illegal
per se.<br>
</p>
<p><br>
</p>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:1347393184.600510.1561657456683@mail.yahoo.com"> Any
other nouns in the phrase (not in a N1-N2 construction or a
timestamp) require a suffix and are therefore marked. For either
of those nouns in a relative phrase to take a Type-5 suffix, they
would simultaneously be both marked and unmarked. I don't think
Okrand could figure out how that would work, and neither can I. <br>
<br>
Believe me, I have long and fervently wished you could use Type-5s
on nouns in a relative phrase (and probably did it a time or two),
but I no longer think it is possible.<br>
<br>
Your last example just reads to me "I am on a ship spying on
(something) I am evading." I don't believe that {Duj} can
simultaneously be a locative with {-Daq} and the object of {jun}.
Is there canon that supports this?</blockquote>
<p>We have <b>yIntaHbogh nuvpu'Daq HItlhej</b><i> Come with me to
the living</i> in <i>paq'batlh.</i> The subject of <b>yIntaHbogh</b>
is marked as a locative.</p>
<p><i>paq'batlh</i> also gives us <b>'ej Hoch vengHomDaq Hoch
vengDaq je / Suchbogh ghaH</b><b> qeylIS luQoy</b><i> And
Kahless spoke to them / In every village and city he went.</i>
In this one the object of <b>Suchbogh</b> is a double locative
noun-noun, <b>Hoch vengHomDaq Hoch vengDaq je.</b> Those are not
locatives of the verb <b>Such,</b> because Kahless did not visit
people in general while in those places; he visited those places.
I could see, however, how this one might be a little more
ambiguous.</p>
<p>It has <b>chalqachlIj rachlu'ta'bogh tutDaq / mol'egh betleH</b><i>
The bat'leth sunk into the post / Of your fortified tower.</i> <b>tutDaq</b>
is the subject and head noun of the relative clause, which is
itself a locative of the main clause.</p>
<p>Skybox 99 has <b>qIb HeHDaq, 'u' SepmeyDaq Sovbe'lu'bogh
lenglu'meH He ghoSlu'bogh retlhDaq 'oHtaH.</b> The relative
clause <b>'u' SepmeyDaq Sovbe'lu'bogh</b><i> unknown regions of
the universe</i> has <b>'u' SepmeyDaq</b> as its object, and
it's a locative of the main clause.</p>
<p>TKW has <b>loghDaq Suvrupbogh SuvwI'pu' chaH Hoch SuvwI'pu''e'</b><i>
In space, all warriors are cold warriors.</i> <b>loghDaq</b> <i>in
space </i>is the object of <b>Suvrupbogh</b><i> who are ready
to fight,</i> and the relative clause is a locative of the main
clause.</p>
<p>I haven't done an exhaustive search, but that's already quite a
lot of evidence, and some of it is quite old.</p>
<p><b>vaj yIlop! SaH pab DaneHbogh!</b><br>
</p>
<pre class="moz-signature" cols="72">--
SuStel
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="http://trimboli.name">http://trimboli.name</a></pre>
</body>
</html>