On 7/28/2020 10:16 AM, Will Martin wrote:
To offer a slightly more specific critique: A relative clause is not a sentence. It’s a noun phrase. As such, it can’t be the second sentence in a Sentence As Object (SAO) construction.
I specifically did not give this response because it doesn't hold up given other areas of Klingon grammar. More than once we've learned that where Okrand says /sentence/ he really means /verbal clause. /He says that conjunctions join sentences, but he also uses them between dependent verbal clauses a lot. He says that subjects and objects go on sentences, but they also go on dependent verbal clauses of all types. Furthermore, Okrand himself has used *'e'* as the object of a non-sentence, in /paq'batlh:/ *qeylIS Qaw' 'e' nIDmeH yerDaj weH molor 'ej juH qachDaj meQmoH * /Molor did not destroy Kahless By burning his house Or ravaging his lands./ (The translation is not literal. The next line starts "Instead, by doing so..." meaning the emphasis should be that Molor /tried/ to destroy Kahless by raiding and burning.) This stanza has a sentence-as-object construction, *qeylIS Qaw' 'e' nIDmeH,* in which the second "sentence" is a purpose clause. Only a few lines later there's another one: *Hoch qInmoH mu'meyDaj ghob 'agh 'ej val yIntaH 'e' luleghmo' chaH mer* /All were bemused by his words, Wise and full of spirit, And astonished to see him alive./ Here, the sentence-as-object, *yIntaH 'e' luleghmo' chaH*/because they saw that he was still alive,/ has a subordinate clause as its second "sentence." We get still more (I'll give shortened versions): *watlh 'Iwraj 'e' lu'aghmo' nuHmey jej* *jatlh 'e' mevDI' qeylIS* *bImej 'e' vIchaw'mo'* *SoHvaD quvwI' qem Hegh 'e' wIvDI' Hegh* *pop Hevchugh quvwI' 'ej 'e' DaqaSmoHchugh *(Simultaneously demonstrates conjoining subordinate clauses!) *jatlh 'e' mevDI' nuvpu'* *'qa' qo'Daq paw chaH 'e' maqmeH* *Suv 'e' mevDI'* and best of all... *veqlarghvo' narghbogh loD chutDaj bIv 'e' ngIlbogh loD DaH pongDaj Sov qotar* /Now Kotar has the name Of the one who eluded Fek'lhr And dared to defy his rules./ ...which is an example of the very kind of relative clause that you said can't happen.
If it worked (and it doesn’t), then the word order would have to be (and keep in mind, this is not grammatically correct but merely a step closer to being grammatically correct in order to show why the whole idea doesn’t work):
Dun [Qap yuQDaj ‘e’ tulbogh nuv].
This /is/ grammatical and is the correct formation for what he tried to say.
It doesn’t work because you can’t have the first sentence in SAO contained within the second sentence. It’s not a “Sentence As Object”. It’s a “Sentence As Object Within Another Sentence”, which is not a valid grammatical construction in Klingon.
Says who?
In general, a Type 9 suffix on either main verb in SAO should set off alarms, since the addition of Type 9 suffix turns the verb into something functionally different from a main verb, and SAO requires two main verbs.
Nope. -- SuStel http://trimboli.name