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

On 7/28/2020 11:21 AM, Will Martin wrote:

I posted the more detailed critique less to be right than to expand on a broader sense of where the limits are, knowing that if I was overextending, you’d catch me and we’d all benefit from the more detailed explanation.

Or you could, y'know, just ask.

Trying to wrap my head around what he’s doing here, it seems that in all cases except your favorite, he has worked optional word order so that clauses that optionally could follow the main clause precede it, instead, which stops what would otherwise encapsulate the first sentence of SAO in the second sentence.

Nobody is talking about making the first sentence a dependent clause. Semantically, it never makes any sense to do so.

In that “best of all” example, he breaks that rule, except that he uses stanzas to make it clear where the SAO attaches itself.

Because it's part of a relative clause, the entirety of which is treated like any other noun phrase, just as TKD tells us to do: "The whole construction (relative clause plus head noun), as a unit, is used in a sentence as a noun."

And that brings me to wonder to what extent paq’batlh is poetry, and therefore not confined to the grammar we generally need to hold ourselves to.

Sigh. You want prose? *QeyHa'choHtaH tuj yoD 'e' botmeH cholHa'meH 'eDSeHcha baH Glenn 'e' ra' */Glenn commanded the repulsion thrusters be fired in order to prevent the heat shield from coming loose./ http://klingon.wiki/En/GoFlight But this is only a transcript. Voragh quoted a speech given by the translator of /paq'batlh/ which he believes was written by Okrand. The first line is *tlhIHvaD paq chu' wImuch 'e' bochaw'mo' chequvmoH 'ej chebelmoH.* And finally, there's no semantic reason why we SHOULDN'T do this. It makes perfect sense. *bIjatlh 'e' DamevDI'*/When you stop talking/ is a perfectly simple subordinate clause. We KNOW that when Okrand says "sentence" he means "OVS clause." We KNOW he's used it himself. We KNOW exactly what it means. The ONLY reason to question it is a demonstrably over-strict reading of TKD.

I’m not arguing that we can’t accept this as canon. I’m just wondering whether this is great canon for grammar in general, or if it hints at a generalizable truth about the grammar, but poetically extends it beyond spoken norm in that one example, since it uses a stanza — a tool of poetry — to put the first sentence of SAO directly in front of the verb it needs to be attached to, or whether the entire use of SAO with Type-9-affixed verbs is poetic and not generalizable.

If there were just one instance of it in /paq'batlh,/ I'd agree that it must be referenced cautiously. But it's used ELEVEN TIMES in the body of the work with no indication whatsoever that it's poetic license, and it's used twice more in passages that are very likely to be Okrand's words. There's reasonable caution, and then there's obstinacy. -- SuStel http://trimboli.name

On 7/30/2020 8:30 AM, mayqel qunen'oS wrote:

charghwI':

...

Dun [Qap yuQDaj ‘e’ tulbogh nuv]. SuStel: This is grammatical and is the correct formation for what he tried to say. There's something I can't understand in this sentence. The subject of the {-bogh} phrase is the {nuv}. But what is the object of the {-bogh} phrase ? Is it only the {'e'} or is it the {Qap yuQDaj} ? Or are they both the subject ?

The object of *tulbogh* is *'e'.* The entire relative clause consists of a sentence as object construction, *Qap yuQDaj 'e' tul nuv,* with *-bogh* added to the main verb, *tul.* The entire subject of the sentence is *Qap yuQDaj 'e' tulbogh nuv*/person who hopes that his planet succeeds./

This aside, could we extend

Note the difference between grammatically possible and wise.

the correct {Dun [Qap yuQDaj ‘e’ tulbogh nuv]} to net, neH sao's and to quotations too ? Suppose we write:

Dun [Qap yuQDaj net tulbogh] someone who hopes that his planet wins is great

No, because the relative clause has no head noun.

Dun [Qap yuQDaj neHbogh nuv] the person who wants his planet to win is great

Yes, so far as we know. But as with all of these, it's confusing and probably not a good idea.

Dun [Qapjaj yuQwIj jatlhbogh nuv] the person who says may my planet win is great

Yes, with the same notes.

Is there something wrong with the above sentences ?

Yes. They are too confusing to be understood without stopping and parsing them. They're like the following perfectly grammatical English sentences: /The horse raced past the barn fell. /(The horse fell. The horse was raced past the barn by someone, and then the horse fell.) // /The rat the cat the dog chased killed ate the malt. /(The rate ate the malt. The cat killed the rat. The dog chased the cat.) /Buffalo buffalo Buffalo buffalo buffalo buffalo Buffalo buffalo. /(Yes, this is a grammatically correct sentence. It means, basically, /Bison from Buffalo, New York, who are intimidated by other bison in their community, also happen to intimidate other bison in their community./ /Buffalo/ is the name of a city in New York, the name of an animal species, and a verb meaning /intimidate./) // -- SuStel http://trimboli.name