Dajchu’.

Most of this sounds like Okrand extending what he started with {qeylIS lISlaHbe’bogh vay’}. It’s not really “restrictive”, in that there is only one Kahless, but… 

It’s like the relative clause is another way of addressing the head noun; another statement about the head noun that you really can’t pass by without saying. The relative clause is as important to state as the main clause.

I’m not declaring a truth here. I’m chewing on an idea. Okrand’s use of this seems consistent. It’s like “one can’t forget him” is part of his name and identity. Picard, similarly has so much significance as Arbiter of Succession that you can’t just say something about him without bringing up this role. His name would carry less weight if you didn’t pack that on to it.

That’s the root of it. Just like a suffix like {-na’} wakes you up to the significance of what might otherwise be a common noun, Okrand’s use of the Relative Clause seems to function as a punch to wake you up to the significance of the Head Noun. It may or may not identify the Head Noun in the restrictive sense, but it does turn up the volume in terms of significance.

Maybe this is simply an accidental pattern and parenthetical Non-Restrictive Relative Clauses are fine in Klingon, but we haven’t seen that happen yet. It’s like Klingon doesn’t obviously have the linguistic line drawn between restrictive and non-restrictive relative clauses. The line might happen in a different place, and only one side of this different line is obviously supported.

Does this make sense to anyone else?

pItlh

charghwI’ ‘utlh
(ghaH, ghaH, -Daj)




On Feb 2, 2023, at 7:52 PM, nIqolay Q via tlhIngan-Hol <tlhingan-hol@lists.kli.org> wrote:

On Thu, Feb 2, 2023 at 11:15 AM SuStel via tlhIngan-Hol <tlhingan-hol@lists.kli.org> wrote:
On 2/2/2023 11:02 AM, Will Martin via tlhIngan-Hol wrote:
I’m sure our canon experts will be happy to clarify whether or not we’ve been given license to use Relative Clauses for parenthetical statements about the Head Noun.

You're describing the difference between restrictive and nonrestrictive clauses. I believe we still haven't seen nonrestrictive relative clauses.

To say Our leader, who is fond of knitting, commands us to attend the meeting, you apparently can't say qepDaq majeS 'e' ra' nIq 'e' tIvbogh DevI'ma'.

Is this confirmed anywhere? My first feeling would be that context would dictate whether the leader's fondness for knitting is an important distinction or merely a parenthetical. I found a few quotes from the paq'batlh which seem like nonrestrictive relative clauses, assuming I've interpreted that term correctly. (One common thing from the examples is that the English translations usually don't use a relative clause of either kind, which might make it harder to determine what the intent of the sentence was.)

All quotes are from the paq'batlh, 2nd edition:
SaqSub’e’ muSHa’bogh
    pawmeH leng qeylIS
    HuDmey Sal ghIq ghIr
And Kahless traveled to
    His beloved Saq’sub,
    Over the mountains,
paq'raD, canto 7, lines 1-3, pages 120-121

pIraqSIS maS bIngDaq
    pIgh rur SaqSub chIm
    choSlu’pu’bogh
The Saq’sub lay
    Empty and desolate,
    Under the Praxis moon.
paq'raD, canto 8, 1-3, pages 122-123
Contextually, we know there's only one Saq'sub (or at least there's only one that's in any way relevant to the story), so SaqSub’e’ muSHa’bogh ("Saq'sub which Kahless loved") and SaqSub chIm choSlu’pu’bogh ("empty Saq'sub which had been deserted") must be parentheticals.

vaj matlhutlhjaj
    ghe’torDaq ghaHtaHbogh vavwI’’e’ wIquvmoHjaj
    Heghbogh loDnI’wI’ wIquvmoHjaj!
Let us drink then
   To my father in Gre’thor
   And the brother I once had.
paq'yav, canto 10, lines 13-15, pages 88-89
This quote has the same situation. Contextually, Kahless only has the one father and the one brother, so these sentences aren't restricting the meaning any further.

SIqral bIQtIqDaq
    joqtaHbogh molor tIqDu’ qem qeylIS
    bIQ DoqDaq tlhabmoH
Kahless takes Molor’s hearts,
    Still beating, to the river Skral,
    He sets them free in the crimson water.
paq'raD, canto 23, lines 46-48, pages 166-167
Molor doesn't have any non-beating hearts to contrast with. The English translation, "still beating", is set off with commas, further suggesting that it's intended to be a parenthetical comment.

Looking at the Skybox cards, I found another example (which is a pretty clear example, and makes me wish I'd found it before I started writing this post):
juHqo'Daq vaS'a' tu'lu'. ngoch luchermeH 'ej wo' San luwuqmeH pa'
ghom tlhIngan yejquv DevwI'pu'. DaH che' ghawran. yejquv DevwI' moj
ghawran 'e' wuqta' cho' 'oDwI' Dapu'bogh janluq pIqarD HoD.
On the Homeworld, there is a great hall where the leaders of the Klingon
High Council meet to determine policy and decide upon the fate of the
Empire. Gowron™ currently presides, named leader of the High Council
by Captain Jean-Luc Picard,™ who was acting as Arbiter of
Succession.
The "who was acting as Arbiter of Succession" clause in the final sentence is set off with a comma in the translation, suggesting it's intended as a parenthetical. Semantically, it can't be there to distinguish from some other Captain Jean-Luc Picard.
_______________________________________________
tlhIngan-Hol mailing list
tlhIngan-Hol@lists.kli.org
http://lists.kli.org/listinfo.cgi/tlhingan-hol-kli.org