While it could be the case that you’ve discovered “bad canon”, it equally could be the case that you’ve found what is simply evidence disproving the reasonable assumptions we made from other canon about the limits of the use of {-Daq} or other Type 5 noun suffixes in Relative Clauses.

In either case, I continue to suggest that if you want people to understand you, it is simple and easy to make the Relative Clause a separate sentence, rather than make the reader/listener pause to make repeated attempts to parse what you’ve written until they dial in the version that makes the most sense.

If you don’t care whether or not you are understood and prefer to prove your grammatical prowess by constructing dense prose that people can figure out if they spend enough time studying it, then go for it. By now, you may have noticed that paq’batlh is jam-packed full of dense prose that people can figure out if they spend enough time studying it. If Okrand can do it, why not you? Right?

pItlh

charghwI’ ‘utlh
(ghaH, ghaH, -Daj)




On Feb 3, 2022, at 7:35 AM, mayqel qunen'oS <mihkoun@gmail.com> wrote:

This thread is slowly but steadily turning into a nightmare.

SuStel:
Yes, you can use other type 5 suffixes on the head noun,
provided those suffixes apply in the main sentence, not the relative clause.

I found this from the paq'batlh:

vaj matlhutlhjaj
ghe'torDaq ghaHtaHbogh vavwI' wIquvmoHjaj
Heghbogh loDnI'wI' wIquvmoHjaj!
Let us drink then
To my father in Gre'thor
And the brother I once had.

Here the {-Daq} obviously refers to the {ghaHtaHbogh vavwI'}. (there's
an {-'e'} missing from the {vavwI'}, but that's not the problem right
now).

The way I understand what's being said in this thread so far, is that
the translation of {ghe'torDaq ghaHtaHbogh vavwI' wIquvmoHjaj} isn't
"may we honor my father who's in hell", but rather "may we honor in
hell, my father who's somewhere unspecified". I get the meaning that
the speaker says "we're in hell, and with us being there, may we honor
my father who's somewhere unspecified".

Also again from the paq'batlh:

qeylISvaD jach 'ej beyDaj luqImmo'
yuQDaq ghaHtaHbogh Hoch tlhIngan'e'
Qomqa' Hoch Qo'noS nuvpu'
All of Kronos trembled once more,
For every Klingon on the planet
Followed her cry for Kahless.

Again here the {-Daq} refers to the {ghaHtaHbogh Hoch tlhIngan'e'},
although I'm not quite sure how this entire line is supposed to fit in
with the lines above and below it.

With all these being said, returning to the original sentence..

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

I still can't see why one alternate translation couldn't be as well
"At Canada which is being neared by America there are bears". Yes, the
English translation is weird. But I was under the impression, that in
a {-bogh} clause the head noun can be marked not only by an {-'e'} but
by other type-5 suffixes too. I don't know if this impression of mine
is actually correct, but perhaps this impression is the root of my
misunderstanding.

--
Dana'an
https://sacredtextsinklingon.wordpress.com/
Ζεὺς ἦν, Ζεὺς ἐστίν, Ζεὺς ἔσσεται· ὦ μεγάλε Ζεῦ
_______________________________________________
tlhIngan-Hol mailing list
tlhIngan-Hol@lists.kli.org
http://lists.kli.org/listinfo.cgi/tlhingan-hol-kli.org