Out of curiosity, since I can't think of an example.. Lets say we have a {-bogh} phrase, e.g. {bartIq leghbogh vIghro'}. Is there a rule which prohibits, one of the nouns having a type-5, e.g. {-'e'}, *and* at the same time the other noun having a type-5 too, e.g. {-mo'}, {-Daq}, {-vo'}, {-vaD} ? ~ m. qunen'oS
Am 26.06.2019 um 14:48 schrieb mayqel qunen'oS:
Out of curiosity, since I can't think of an example..
Lets say we have a {-bogh} phrase, e.g. {bartIq leghbogh vIghro'}.
Is there a rule which prohibits, one of the nouns having a type-5, e.g. {-'e'}, *and* at the same time the other noun having a type-5 too, e.g. {-mo'}, {-Daq}, {-vo'}, {-vaD} ?
I don't know such a rule: {bartIqDaq bachbogh vIghro'mo' jIHagh.} Why not? -- Lieven L. Litaer aka the "Klingon Teacher from Germany" http://www.klingonisch.de http://www.klingonwiki.net/En/Type5NounSuffixes
On 6/26/2019 9:17 AM, Lieven L. Litaer wrote:
Am 26.06.2019 um 14:48 schrieb mayqel qunen'oS:
Out of curiosity, since I can't think of an example..
Lets say we have a {-bogh} phrase, e.g. {bartIq leghbogh vIghro'}.
Is there a rule which prohibits, one of the nouns having a type-5, e.g. {-'e'}, *and* at the same time the other noun having a type-5 too, e.g. {-mo'}, {-Daq}, {-vo'}, {-vaD} ?
I don't know such a rule:
{bartIqDaq bachbogh vIghro'mo' jIHagh.}
Why not?
I think what he means is that the type 5 suffixes apply to the relative clause as a whole, not to noun phrases added to the relative clause. For instance, you can say *bartIqDaq leghbogh vIghro' jIba'*/I sit on the branch that the cat sees./ The *-Daq* on the head noun turns the entire relative clause into a locative. What mayqel seems to be asking is whether you could add another type 5 to the other noun in the relative clause and also have that apply to the main clause. For instance, *bartIqDaq leghbogh vIghro'mo' jIba'.* I don't think this works, because it would make the relative clause, which is a noun phrase, have multiple syntactic roles, which is generally forbidden. -- SuStel http://trimboli.name
Am 26.06.2019 um 15:25 schrieb SuStel:
main clause. For instance, *bartIqDaq leghbogh vIghro'mo' jIba'.* I don't think this works, because it would make the relative clause, which is a noun phrase, have multiple syntactic roles, which is generally forbidden.
Yes, somehow confusing. Maybe that's why it sounds to me like it means "I sit because of the cat which is seeing on the branch." (the cat is on the branch) I would change the word order to get the different intended meaning: {leghbogh vIghro'mo' bartIqDaq jIba'.} "I sit in the branch because of the seeing cat" or {bartIqDaq jIba' leghbogh vIghro'mo'.} "I sit in the branch because of the seeing cat" because I think the rule says that the locative must precede the sentence (here: the verb ba') and the -mo' part is a different clause [forgot the name] that stands separately. But I think i'm drifting off the original qestion. -- Lieven L. Litaer aka the "Klingon Teacher from Germany" http://www.klingonisch.de http://www.klingonwiki.net/En/TypeNounSuffixes
On Wed, 26 Jun 2019 at 15:25, SuStel <sustel@trimboli.name> wrote:
On 6/26/2019 9:17 AM, Lieven L. Litaer wrote:
Am 26.06.2019 um 14:48 schrieb mayqel qunen'oS:
Out of curiosity, since I can't think of an example..
Lets say we have a {-bogh} phrase, e.g. {bartIq leghbogh vIghro'}.
Is there a rule which prohibits, one of the nouns having a type-5, e.g. {-'e'}, **and** at the same time the other noun having a type-5 too, e.g. {-mo'}, {-Daq}, {-vo'}, {-vaD} ?
I don't know such a rule:
{bartIqDaq bachbogh vIghro'mo' jIHagh.}
Why not?
I think what he means is that the type 5 suffixes apply to the relative clause as a whole, not to noun phrases added to the relative clause.
For instance, you can say *bartIqDaq leghbogh vIghro' jIba'** I sit on the branch that the cat sees.* The *-Daq* on the head noun turns the entire relative clause into a locative.
What mayqel seems to be asking is whether you could add another type 5 to the other noun in the relative clause and also have that apply to the main clause. For instance, *bartIqDaq leghbogh vIghro'mo' jIba'.* I don't think this works, because it would make the relative clause, which is a noun phrase, have multiple syntactic roles, which is generally forbidden.
Not sure if this works or not, but it's not immediately obvious to me why it doesn't: qeylIS'e' lIjlaHbe'bogh vay'vaD gha'tlhIq vIbom. I will sing an ode of respect for the one who cannot forget KAHLESS. -- De'vID
On 6/27/2019 9:00 AM, Daniel Dadap wrote:
On Jun 27, 2019, at 01:46, De'vID<de.vid.jonpin@gmail.com> wrote:
qeylIS'e' lIjlaHbe'bogh vay'vaD gha'tlhIq vIbom. Why not {qeylISvaD lIjlaHbe'bogh vay'}?
These mean very different things. Assuming we are allowed to use *-'e'* for emphasis in a relative clause, which I am not convinced we are, we have *qeylIS'e' lIjlaHbe'bogh vay'vaD gha'tlhIq vIbom */I sing an ode of respect to someone who has not forgotten KAHLESS (as opposed to someone who has not forgotten someone else)./ *qeylISvaD lIjlaHbe'bogh vay' gha'tlhIq vIbom */I sing an ode of respect to Kahless the Unforgettable./ -- SuStel http://trimboli.name
Since when has any suffix besides -'e' been legal on either noun which is the subject or object of a relative verb? Did Okrand change his statement that he couldn't make it work as anything but subject or object and I missed it?ter'eSSent from my Verizon, Samsung Galaxy smartphone -------- Original message --------From: SuStel <sustel@trimboli.name> Date: 6/27/19 8:08 AM (GMT-06:00) To: tlhingan-hol@lists.kli.org Subject: Re: [tlhIngan Hol] two type-5 on a {-bogh} phrase On 6/27/2019 9:00 AM, Daniel Dadap wrote: On Jun 27, 2019, at 01:46, De'vID <de.vid.jonpin@gmail.com> wrote: qeylIS'e' lIjlaHbe'bogh vay'vaD gha'tlhIq vIbom. Why not {qeylISvaD lIjlaHbe'bogh vay'}? These mean very different things. Assuming we are allowed to use -'e' for emphasis in a relative clause, which I am not convinced we are, we have qeylIS'e' lIjlaHbe'bogh vay'vaD gha'tlhIq vIbom I sing an ode of respect to someone who has not forgotten KAHLESS (as opposed to someone who has not forgotten someone else). qeylISvaD lIjlaHbe'bogh vay' gha'tlhIq vIbom I sing an ode of respect to Kahless the Unforgettable. -- SuStel http://trimboli.name
Since when has any suffix besides -'e' been legal on either noun which is the subject or object of a relative verb? Did Okrand change his statement that he couldn't make it work as anything but subject or object and I missed it?ter'eSSent from my Verizon, Samsung Galaxy smartphone -------- Original message --------From: SuStel <sustel@trimboli.name> Date: 6/27/19 8:08 AM (GMT-06:00) To: tlhingan-hol@lists.kli.org Subject: Re: [tlhIngan Hol] two type-5 on a {-bogh} phrase On 6/27/2019 9:00 AM, Daniel Dadap wrote: On Jun 27, 2019, at 01:46, De'vID <de.vid.jonpin@gmail.com> wrote: qeylIS'e' lIjlaHbe'bogh vay'vaD gha'tlhIq vIbom. Why not {qeylISvaD lIjlaHbe'bogh vay'}? These mean very different things. Assuming we are allowed to use -'e' for emphasis in a relative clause, which I am not convinced we are, we have qeylIS'e' lIjlaHbe'bogh vay'vaD gha'tlhIq vIbom I sing an ode of respect to someone who has not forgotten KAHLESS (as opposed to someone who has not forgotten someone else). qeylISvaD lIjlaHbe'bogh vay' gha'tlhIq vIbom I sing an ode of respect to Kahless the Unforgettable. -- SuStel http://trimboli.name
On 6/27/2019 2:46 AM, De'vID wrote:
On Wed, 26 Jun 2019 at 15:25, SuStel <sustel@trimboli.name <mailto:sustel@trimboli.name>> wrote:
On 6/26/2019 9:17 AM, Lieven L. Litaer wrote:
Am 26.06.2019 um 14:48 schrieb mayqel qunen'oS:
Out of curiosity, since I can't think of an example..
Lets say we have a {-bogh} phrase, e.g. {bartIq leghbogh vIghro'}.
Is there a rule which prohibits, one of the nouns having a type-5, e.g. {-'e'}, **and** at the same time the other noun having a type-5 too, e.g. {-mo'}, {-Daq}, {-vo'}, {-vaD} ?
I don't know such a rule:
{bartIqDaq bachbogh vIghro'mo' jIHagh.}
Why not?
I think what he means is that the type 5 suffixes apply to the relative clause as a whole, not to noun phrases added to the relative clause.
For instance, you can say *bartIqDaq leghbogh vIghro' jIba'*/I sit on the branch that the cat sees./ The *-Daq* on the head noun turns the entire relative clause into a locative.
What mayqel seems to be asking is whether you could add another type 5 to the other noun in the relative clause and also have that apply to the main clause. For instance, *bartIqDaq leghbogh vIghro'mo' jIba'.* I don't think this works, because it would make the relative clause, which is a noun phrase, have multiple syntactic roles, which is generally forbidden.
Not sure if this works or not, but it's not immediately obvious to me why it doesn't: qeylIS'e' lIjlaHbe'bogh vay'vaD gha'tlhIq vIbom. I will sing an ode of respect for the one who cannot forget KAHLESS.
It doesn't work because *-'e'* in a relative clause makes the noun it's attached to the head noun of the clause. I don't think you get to choose whether it means head noun or emphasis. When *-'e'* is performing its role as marking emphasis, it's not really working as a syntactic marker, and is only technically a type 5 suffix. If you could choose emphasis over head noun marker, then your sentence would work, but it wouldn't really be an example of what mayqel is asking about. -- SuStel http://trimboli.name
participants (6)
-
Daniel Dadap -
De'vID -
Lieven L. Litaer -
mayqel qunen'oS -
SuStel -
terrence.donnelly