Am 22.08.2018 um 15:57 schrieb SuStel:
I would point out that only *'Iv* and *nuq* (and, by extension of suffix, *nuqDaq*) act like pronouns, substituting for the answer.
Who says "only"?
This is again a situation where Okrand does not say "this is how it works", but he does not say the opposite. Just because he did no mention that {'ar} works like {nuq} does not mean that it does not.
Jesus Christ.
TKD presents a master list of question words, then it singles out 'Iv and nuq and says they fit into the sentence in the position that would be occupied by the answer.
It then says nuqDaq is nuq + -Daq and says it goes at the beginning where any locative phrase would go.
Then it says chay', ghorgh, and qatlh go at the
beginning too. chay', he adds, can be used as a standalone
sentence.
Finally, it says, 'ar follows the noun to which it
refers, and that noun may not have a plural suffix on it.
Okrand was not being vague. He gives very clear instructions for how to use these words. He adds a new rule in Conversational Klingon about 'ar being used as a standalone like chay', and he adds a new word 'arlogh later on. He also clarifies that the pronounness of 'Iv and nuq extend to the ability to be verb-like when used as copulas. But he has never done anything to contradict these rules, and he has never done anything to suggest that 'ar can act like a pronoun in the way 'Iv and nuq can. He has the right to do so later, but he hasn't so far.
So forgive me if I condense all those paragraphs down to "only." BECAUSE THAT'S WHAT IT MEANS.
I'll tell you what. I hereby declare that relative clauses don't
require head nouns. And I have Okrand's own words to back me up.
He says in a file on the Klingon Language Lab CD, Dajatlhbogh
vISovbe' and it's matched by another files that
says I don't know what you said. After all, Okrand never
said that relative clauses HAVE to have head nouns, right? So
start accepting this phrase and the grammar behind it.
This is just my opinion, but I think that {'ar Dalegh} is absolutely correct. It even follows the rule if you think of a "zero"-noun:
{[Doch] 'ar Dalegh}. "how many [things] do you see?"
What the hell is a zero-noun? That isn't a thing in Klingon.
*does not substitute itself for a number. This is clear not only because *'ar* comes after the noun, not before, and constrains its use of a plural suffix, but because *'ar* can be used on mass nouns where numbers cannot. You can ask *nIn 'ar wIghaj*/How much fuel do we have?/ but you cannot say *vagh nIn wIghaj */We have five fuels./
Don't forget it can be used on mass nouns, but also on countable things.
I haven't forgotten that. It's not relevant to the point.
By the way, in English, the problem is the same: You can ask "How much fuel do we have?" but you cannot say "We have five fuels" either.
Which should have been completely clear from my post, and which
just further demonstrates the point. I had originally started my
example with bIQ 'ar, but then I realized that someone was
going to sniffle and say that you can talk about five waters
in English if you imagine them as bottles of water, so I went
looking for something that didn't have that possibility in
English.
-- SuStel http://trimboli.name