As SuStel says, this isn’t allowed because Canada (the Head Noun of the Relative Clause) is neither the subject nor object of {Sumbogh}. There’s another reason your example doesn’t work.

America has nothing to do with the bears in Canada, so your reference to America is “parenthetical”. There aren’t several Canadas around such that being near America specifies which Canada you are talking about. In this sense, so far as we know, Klingon is a one step more strict about the idea that a sentence is “a complete thought”. "Canada is near America," is a complete thought. "There are bears in Canada,” is a complete thought. It really ought to be two sentences.

In English, there are two kinds of Relative Clauses. So far as we know, Klingon only uses one of them; the one that identifies the head noun, not merely describing it in a way unnecessary to the meaning of the main clause.

pItlh

charghwI’ ‘utlh
(ghaH, ghaH, -Daj)




On Feb 1, 2022, at 9:28 AM, SuStel <sustel@trimboli.name> wrote:

On 2/1/2022 8:02 AM, mayqel qunen'oS wrote:
Suppose I want to say: "At Canada there are bears. Near Canada is
America". And I want to say all this in a single sentence. So I write:

qa'naDa'Daq Sumbogh 'amerI'qa' mIl'oDmey tu'lu'
at canada where america is near there are bears

Would this be correct? Or is this "the ship on which I fled" problem?

Perhaps, translating the {-bogh} as "where" seems weird, but in tkd it
says that "Relative clauses are translated into English as phrases
beginning with <who, which, where> and most commonly <that>"

Yes, this is the "ship in which I fled" problem. The head noun of a relative clause must be the subject or object of the clause, and the head noun must be the noun that fits into the main sentence.

--
SuStel
http://trimboli.name

_______________________________________________
tlhIngan-Hol mailing list
tlhIngan-Hol@lists.kli.org
http://lists.kli.org/listinfo.cgi/tlhingan-hol-kli.org