<html><head><meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=utf-8"></head><body style="word-wrap: break-word; -webkit-nbsp-mode: space; line-break: after-white-space;" class=""><div class="">This opens up the long argued topic of whether Relative Clauses in Klingon are used to identify an individual, like “The wind that shakes the barley”, which identifies a specific wind, vs. “The wind, which shakes the barley”, which speaks about the wind in general and lets you know parenthetically that wind shakes barley, among other activities. English gives you mechanisms to identify the difference. The Relative Pronoun “that” is used without the Relative Clause being offset with commas when the clause identifies an individual, and the Relative Pronoun “which” is used, with the Relative Clause bounded by commas for a parenthetical comment about the Head Noun.</div><div class=""><br class=""></div><div class="">Klingon doesn’t give us any mechanism for which type of Relative Clause is intended, and we argue over canon, trying to figure out if it’s just one or the other, or both with no way of knowing which any given instance is intended.</div><div class=""><br class=""></div><div class="">Maybe this has been resolved? I don’t remember.</div><br class=""><div class="">
<meta charset="UTF-8" class=""><div dir="auto" style="caret-color: rgb(0, 0, 0); color: rgb(0, 0, 0); letter-spacing: normal; text-align: start; text-indent: 0px; text-transform: none; white-space: normal; word-spacing: 0px; -webkit-text-stroke-width: 0px; text-decoration: none; word-wrap: break-word; -webkit-nbsp-mode: space; line-break: after-white-space;" class=""><div>pItlh</div><div><br class=""></div><div>charghwI’ ‘utlh</div><div>(ghaH, ghaH, -Daj)</div><div class=""><br class=""></div></div><br class="Apple-interchange-newline"><br class="Apple-interchange-newline">
</div>
<div><br class=""><blockquote type="cite" class=""><div class="">On Apr 29, 2022, at 9:22 AM, Iikka Hauhio <<a href="mailto:fergusq@protonmail.com" class="">fergusq@protonmail.com</a>> wrote:</div><br class="Apple-interchange-newline"><div class=""><div style="font-family: arial; font-size: 14px;" class="">I believe that <b class="">wa'DIch</b> can be used as a noun. However, I'm not sure it means what you think it means in <b class="">maghwI' ghaH Haw'bogh wa'DIch'e'</b>. I think it means more like "The first is a traitor, and also flees.", ie. that it's not talking about the first to flee, just about a first, and that first flees.</div><div style="font-family: arial; font-size: 14px;" class=""><br class=""></div><div style="font-family: arial; font-size: 14px;" class="">Iikka "fergusq" Hauhio</div><div class="protonmail_signature_block" style="font-family: arial; font-size: 14px;">
</div>
<div style="font-family: arial; font-size: 14px;" class=""><br class=""></div><div class="protonmail_quote">
------- Original Message -------<br class="">
On Friday, April 29th, 2022 at 16.10, SuStel <<a href="mailto:sustel@trimboli.name" class="">sustel@trimboli.name</a>> wrote:<br class=""><br class="">
<blockquote class="protonmail_quote" type="cite">
<div class="moz-cite-prefix">On 4/29/2022 8:03 AM, D qunen'oS wrote:<br class="">
</div>
<blockquote type="cite" class="">Suppose
I write:
<div dir="auto" class=""><br class="">
</div>
<div dir="auto" class="">maghwI' ghaH Haw'bogh wa'DIch'e'</div>
<div dir="auto" class="">the first who flees is a traitor</div>
<div dir="auto" class=""><br class="">
</div>
<div dir="auto" class="">Would it be correct?</div>
</blockquote><p class="">Here is the evidence in favor:</p><p class="">1. TKD flat out tells us "Numbers are used as nouns." Ordinals
are numbers. Therefore, it is not unreasonable to suppose that
ordinals can be used as nouns.</p><p class="">2. The word <b class="">cha'DIch</b> is used as a noun to refer to one's
"second" during legal proceedings when the accused is not allowed
personal combat.</p><p class="">3. <i class="">paq'batlh</i> uses <b class="">cha'DIch</b> as well as the other
ordinals from <b class="">wa'DIch</b> through <b class="">vaghDIch</b> as
adverbials, so it is canonically known that the ordinals can act
in ways other than just modifying nouns.</p><p class="">Given these, I have no qualms about using <b class="">wa'DIch</b> or any
ordinal as a noun the way you have.<br class="">
</p>
<pre cols="72" class="moz-signature">--
SuStel
<a href="http://trimboli.name/" class="moz-txt-link-freetext" rel="noreferrer nofollow noopener" target="_blank">http://trimboli.name</a></pre>
</blockquote><br class="">
</div>_______________________________________________<br class="">tlhIngan-Hol mailing list<br class=""><a href="mailto:tlhIngan-Hol@lists.kli.org" class="">tlhIngan-Hol@lists.kli.org</a><br class="">http://lists.kli.org/listinfo.cgi/tlhingan-hol-kli.org<br class=""></div></blockquote></div><br class=""></body></html>