Re: [tlhIngan Hol] two type-5 on a {-bogh} phrase
On 6/27/2019 9:22 AM, terrence.donnelly wrote:
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?
I think you've misunderstood what Okrand was saying. <http://klingonska.org/canon/1995-06-holqed-04-2-a.txt> Lawrence's question was "We know that the head-noun of a relative clause can be the subject or the object; the question is, can it be any other case?" He means the head noun can be the subject or the object of the relative clause, not the main clause. When Okrand said "I couldn't make the *-bogh* thing work for me with anything other than subject or object," he means the head noun couldn't be, for instance, a locative attached to the relative clause. That's the "ship in which I fled" problem. You can construct a relative clause around a ship that does something or a ship which has something done to it, but you can't construct relative clause around a ship in which, for which, or because of which something is done. Good: *mutlha' Duj vIjunpu'bogh*/ The ship which I evaded chases me./ *mutlha' mujunpu'bogh Duj */The ship which evaded me chases me./ Bad: *mutlha' DujDaq jIjunpu'bogh */The ship in which I evaded chases me. /(NOT ALLOWED) But the following works fine, because the head noun, though a locative for the main clause, is still just the object of the relative clause: *DujDaq vIjunpu'bogh jIghoq */I spy aboard the ship which evaded me./ -- SuStel http://trimboli.name
SuStel:
DujDaq vIjunpu'bogh jIghoq I spy aboard the ship which evaded me.
I think there is a mismatch between the english and the klingon, I read the klingon as "I spy at the ship which has been evaded by me". Do I understand something wrong ? ~ m. qunen'oS
On 6/27/2019 10:10 AM, mayqel qunen'oS wrote:
SuStel:
DujDaq vIjunpu'bogh jIghoq I spy aboard the ship which evaded me. I think there is a mismatch between the english and the klingon, I read the klingon as "I spy at the ship which has been evaded by me". Do I understand something wrong ?
Yes, I meant to say /I spy aboard the ship which I evaded. /Juggling multiple illlustrative variations can be confusing. -- SuStel http://trimboli.name
Apparently the understanding of this has gotten considerably more elastic since the last time I checked in. What I understood from Okrand's statement was that the head noun of the relative clause (which could be the subject or the object) can only be the subject or object of the main verb as well, due to the intrinsic nature of Klingon. That is, subjects and objects in Klingon are unmarked, and that holds true for nouns in a relative phrase, also. Any other nouns in the phrase (not in a N1-N2 construction or a timestamp) require a suffix and are therefore marked. For either of those nouns in a relative phrase to take a Type-5 suffix, they would simultaneously be both marked and unmarked. I don't think Okrand could figure out how that would work, and neither can I. Believe me, I have long and fervently wished you could use Type-5s on nouns in a relative phrase (and probably did it a time or two), but I no longer think it is possible. Your last example just reads to me "I am on a ship spying on (something) I am evading." I don't believe that {Duj} can simultaneously be a locative with {-Daq} and the object of {jun}. Is there canon that supports this? ter'eS On Thursday, June 27, 2019, 8:39:48 AM CDT, SuStel <sustel@trimboli.name> wrote: On 6/27/2019 9:22 AM, terrence.donnelly wrote: 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? I think you've misunderstood what Okrand was saying. <http://klingonska.org/canon/1995-06-holqed-04-2-a.txt> Lawrence's question was "We know that the head-noun of a relative clause can be the subject or the object; the question is, can it be any other case?" He means the head noun can be the subject or the object of the relative clause, not the main clause. When Okrand said "I couldn't make the -bogh thing work for me with anything other than subject or object," he means the head noun couldn't be, for instance, a locative attached to the relative clause. That's the "ship in which I fled" problem. You can construct a relative clause around a ship that does something or a ship which has something done to it, but you can't construct relative clause around a ship in which, for which, or because of which something is done. Good: mutlha' Duj vIjunpu'bogh The ship which I evaded chases me. mutlha' mujunpu'bogh Duj The ship which evaded me chases me. Bad: mutlha' DujDaq jIjunpu'bogh The ship in which I evaded chases me. (NOT ALLOWED) But the following works fine, because the head noun, though a locative for the main clause, is still just the object of the relative clause: DujDaq vIjunpu'bogh jIghoq I spy aboard the ship which evaded me. -- SuStelhttp://trimboli.name _______________________________________________ tlhIngan-Hol mailing list tlhIngan-Hol@lists.kli.org http://lists.kli.org/listinfo.cgi/tlhingan-hol-kli.org
On Jun 27, 2019, at 1:44 PM, terrence.donnelly@sbcglobal.net wrote:
Believe me, I have long and fervently wished you could use Type-5s on nouns in a relative phrase (and probably did it a time or two), but I no longer think it is possible.
Your last example just reads to me "I am on a ship spying on (something) I am evading." I don't believe that {Duj} can simultaneously be a locative with {-Daq} and the object of {jun}. Is there canon that supports this?
meQtaHbogh qachDaq Suv qoH neH -- ghunchu'wI'
On Thu, Jun 27, 2019, 19:44 , <terrence.donnelly@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
Apparently the understanding of this has gotten considerably more elastic since the last time I checked in. What I understood from Okrand's statement was that the head noun of the relative clause (which could be the subject or the object) can only be the subject or object of the main verb as well, due to the intrinsic nature of Klingon. That is, subjects and objects in Klingon are unmarked, and that holds true for nouns in a relative phrase, also. Any other nouns in the phrase (not in a N1-N2 construction or a timestamp) require a suffix and are therefore marked. For either of those nouns in a relative phrase to take a Type-5 suffix, they would simultaneously be both marked and unmarked. I don't think Okrand could figure out how that would work, and neither can I.
Believe me, I have long and fervently wished you could use Type-5s on nouns in a relative phrase (and probably did it a time or two), but I no longer think it is possible.
Your last example just reads to me "I am on a ship spying on (something) I am evading." I don't believe that {Duj} can simultaneously be a locative with {-Daq} and the object of {jun}. Is there canon that supports this?
{'u' SepmeyDaq Sovbe'lu'bogh lenglu'meH He ghoSlu'bogh retlhDaq 'oHtaH} (SkyBox 99) {Sepmey} is the object of {Sovbe'lu'} and has a type 5 suffix {-Daq}. {leng} is special in that its object can take {-Daq}, so {'u' SepmeyDaq Sovbe'lu'bogh} could be either the object of {leng} or a locative, but in either case it's an example of a noun with {-Daq} being the object of a verb with {-bogh}.
On Thu, Jun 27, 2019 at 1:44 PM <terrence.donnelly@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
I don't believe that {Duj} can simultaneously be a locative with {-Daq} and the object of {jun}. Is there canon that supports this?
qIb HeHDaq, 'u' SepmeyDaq Sovbe'lu'bogh lenglu'meH He ghoSlu'bogh retlhDaq 'oHtaH {'u' Sepmey} is the object of {Sovbe'lu'bogh} and bears the {-Daq} suffix to be a locative for another phrase in which it is embedded. -- ghunchu'wI'
On 6/27/2019 1:44 PM, terrence.donnelly@sbcglobal.net wrote:
Apparently the understanding of this has gotten considerably more elastic since the last time I checked in.
I have always understood it as I described it, and I've heard others understand it that way too. It's described this way on the KAG's wiki <https://www.kag.org/wiki/Klingon_Grammar_Addenda_Commentary#6.2.3._Relative_clauses>, for instance. Lawrence's question was pitched specifically to address the ship-in-which-I-fled problem.
What I understood from Okrand's statement was that the head noun of the relative clause (which could be the subject or the object) can only be the subject or object of the main verb as well, due to the intrinsic nature of Klingon. That is, subjects and objects in Klingon are unmarked, and that holds true for nouns in a relative phrase, also.
Except they don't have to be unmarked. Leaving aside *-'e',* which I've said doesn't really act like a syntactic suffix when it's used as emphasis, it's perfectly legal, though redundant, to use a locative-marked noun as the object of a verb whose meaning is inherently locative, as in the canonical sentence *bIQtIqDaq vIjaH* for /I'm going to the river./ Now, there probably aren't any verbs that let you use *-mo'* or *-vaD* as subject or object, but this is because no verbs have arguments that are inherently causes or beneficiaries, so far as we know, not because putting them on verb arguments is illegal per se.
Any other nouns in the phrase (not in a N1-N2 construction or a timestamp) require a suffix and are therefore marked. For either of those nouns in a relative phrase to take a Type-5 suffix, they would simultaneously be both marked and unmarked. I don't think Okrand could figure out how that would work, and neither can I.
Believe me, I have long and fervently wished you could use Type-5s on nouns in a relative phrase (and probably did it a time or two), but I no longer think it is possible.
Your last example just reads to me "I am on a ship spying on (something) I am evading." I don't believe that {Duj} can simultaneously be a locative with {-Daq} and the object of {jun}. Is there canon that supports this?
We have *yIntaHbogh nuvpu'Daq HItlhej*/Come with me to the living/ in /paq'batlh./ The subject of *yIntaHbogh* is marked as a locative. /paq'batlh/ also gives us *'ej Hoch vengHomDaq Hoch vengDaq je / Suchbogh ghaH**qeylIS luQoy*/And Kahless spoke to them / In every village and city he went./ In this one the object of *Suchbogh* is a double locative noun-noun, *Hoch vengHomDaq Hoch vengDaq je.* Those are not locatives of the verb *Such,* because Kahless did not visit people in general while in those places; he visited those places. I could see, however, how this one might be a little more ambiguous. It has *chalqachlIj rachlu'ta'bogh tutDaq / mol'egh betleH*/The bat'leth sunk into the post / Of your fortified tower./ *tutDaq* is the subject and head noun of the relative clause, which is itself a locative of the main clause. Skybox 99 has *qIb HeHDaq, 'u' SepmeyDaq Sovbe'lu'bogh lenglu'meH He ghoSlu'bogh retlhDaq 'oHtaH.* The relative clause *'u' SepmeyDaq Sovbe'lu'bogh*/unknown regions of the universe/ has *'u' SepmeyDaq* as its object, and it's a locative of the main clause. TKW has *loghDaq Suvrupbogh SuvwI'pu' chaH Hoch SuvwI'pu''e'*/In space, all warriors are cold warriors./ *loghDaq* /in space /is the object of *Suvrupbogh*/who are ready to fight,/ and the relative clause is a locative of the main clause. I haven't done an exhaustive search, but that's already quite a lot of evidence, and some of it is quite old. *vaj yIlop! SaH pab DaneHbogh!* -- SuStel http://trimboli.name
Me: Is there canon that supports this? OK, obviously I have forgotten many things. You all have convinced me. ter'eS
On Jun 27, 2019, at 13:26, SuStel <sustel@trimboli.name> wrote:
TKW has loghDaq Suvrupbogh SuvwI'pu' chaH Hoch SuvwI'pu''e' In space, all warriors are cold warriors. loghDaq in space is the object of Suvrupbogh who are ready to fight, and the relative clause is a locative of the main clause.
That interpretation doesn’t match the given English translation. I think {loghDaq}, and not {loghDaq Suvrupbogh SuvwI'pu'}, is the locative of the main clause. If we were to interpret it the way you suggest, I think it would need to be translated as “All warriors are in space, which warriors are willing to fight.” With {loghDaq} being the locative for the main clause, it would be “In space, all warriors are warriors who are ready to fight”, which seems to fit the given translation better.
On 6/27/2019 2:40 PM, Daniel Dadap wrote:
On Jun 27, 2019, at 13:26, SuStel <sustel@trimboli.name <mailto:sustel@trimboli.name>> wrote:
TKW has *loghDaq Suvrupbogh SuvwI'pu' chaH Hoch SuvwI'pu''e'*/In space, all warriors are cold warriors./ *loghDaq* /in space /is the object of *Suvrupbogh*/who are ready to fight,/ and the relative clause is a locative of the main clause.
That interpretation doesn’t match the given English translation. I think {loghDaq}, and not {loghDaq Suvrupbogh SuvwI'pu'}, is the locative of the main clause. If we were to interpret it the way you suggest, I think it would need to be translated as “All warriors are in space, which warriors are willing to fight.” With {loghDaq} being the locative for the main clause, it would be “In space, all warriors are warriors who are ready to fight”, which seems to fit the given translation better.
ghaytan bIlugh. mu'tlheghvam vInobHa'. -- SuStel http://trimboli.name
participants (6)
-
Alan Anderson -
Daniel Dadap -
De'vID -
mayqel qunen'oS -
SuStel -
terrence.donnelly＠sbcglobal.net