Recently I came across the Ca'NoN sentence: {qarDaSQa'Daq ruDelya' rop'a' Hergh qengbogh yo' Dabot} Reading it at first, I found it to be pretty straightforward and unremarkable. But soon it hit me; If I was asked to translate it without knowing the given Ca'NoN translation, I would write: {qarDaSQa'Daq ruDelya' rop'a' Hergh qengbogh yo' Dabot} At Cardassia, intercept the fleet which carries the rudellian plague relief However, the Ca'NoN translation goes: {qarDaSQa'Daq ruDelya' rop'a' Hergh qengbogh yo' Dabot} Intercept rudellian plague relief convoy to cardassian union In other words, the way I read initially the sentence was: qarDaSQa'Daq (ruDelya' rop'a' Hergh qengbogh yo' Dabot) But the way this sentence is read in Ca'NoN is: (qarDaSQa'Daq ruDelya' rop'a' Hergh qengbogh yo') Dabot According to my interpretation, the interception takes place at cardassia According to Ca'NoN, Cardassia isn't the "where" is this interception takes place, but the destination of the plague relief convoy. According to my interpretation, the {-Daq}ed noun refers to the verb of the sentence {Dabot}. According to Ca'NoN, the {-Daq}ed noun refers to the {-bogh} clause. Assuming my analysis so far is correct, I realize something I hadn't realized so far; that a {-Daq}ed noun, doesn't have to necessarily refer to the verb of the sentence, but it can refer to a {-bogh} clause instead. On one hand, I'm happy to realize that Ca'NoN allows for this kind of "freedom" in interpreting the scope of a {-Daq}ed noun, however if this hand becomes a fist, I wonder how the reader would understand which of these two interpretations of a {-Daq}ed noun, is actually intended, unless the translation isn't provided as well. ~ mayqel *I love maltz* qunen'oS
On 1/28/2019 10:23 AM, mayqel qunenoS wrote:
Assuming my analysis so far is correct, I realize something I hadn't realized so far; that a {-Daq}ed noun, doesn't have to necessarily refer to the verb of the sentence, but it can refer to a {-bogh} clause instead.
On one hand, I'm happy to realize that Ca'NoN allows for this kind of "freedom" in interpreting the scope of a {-Daq}ed noun, however if this hand becomes a fist, I wonder how the reader would understand which of these two interpretations of a {-Daq}ed noun, is actually intended, unless the translation isn't provided as well.
Yes, it can, and yes, you have to be careful when doing it, as complex relative clauses quickly become indecipherable. There's no reason you couldn't, say, attach a locative phrase to a subordinate clause that is itself attached to a relative clause, except that voice in your head telling you that nobody will be able to parse it. -- SuStel http://trimboli.name
On 1/28/2019 11:06 AM, mayqel qunenoS wrote:
SuStel:
attach a locative phrase to a subordinate clause that is itself attached to a relative clause
Not that I intend to do something like this, but could you write an example ?
*vaS'a'Daq vIqraq vIleghtaHvIS taghpu'bogh 'oy' vIqImHa' */I ignore the pain which started while I was looking at the art in the Great Hall./ I'm not necessarily currently experiencing the pain in the Great Hall or while looking at art; I'm experiencing pain that /started/ while I was in the Great Hall looking at art. The first five words make up the entire relative clause. -- SuStel http://trimboli.name
There's something additional I would like to ask. SuStel;
vaS'a'Daq vIqraq vIleghtaHvIS taghpu'bogh 'oy' vIqImHa'
In the above example, as well as the Ca'NoN rudellian plague example, we have: "{-Daq}ed noun (all other crap i.e subordinate & relative clauses) (verb of the sentence)" With the {-Daq}ed noun, referring to the "all other crap", instead of the "verb of the sentence". But could we have as well the following ? "{-Daq}ed noun (verb of the sentence) (all other crap i.e subordinate & relative clauses)" With the {-Daq}ed noun, still referring to the "all other crap" ? Or in order for the {-Daq}ed noun to be able to refer to the "all other crap", the "all other crap" need to necessarily follow, right next to it in the sentence ? ~ mayqel *I love maltz* qunen'oS
Some subordinate clauses can’t be moved to the end of the sentence. {-meH} clauses, for example. And relative clauses have to accompany the head noun, wherever it is in the main sentence, so if the direct object of the main clause is the subordinate clause, you have no choice but place the locative in an ambiguous place, leaving context to clarify. There is no grammatical way to disambiguate without context. But when a subordinate clause CAN be moved to the end, yes, you can have the locative marker at the beginning of the subordinate clause instead of at the beginning of the main clause. Will Martin willmartin2@mac.com
On Jan 29, 2019, at 9:58 AM, mayqel qunenoS <mihkoun@gmail.com> wrote:
There's something additional I would like to ask.
SuStel;
vaS'a'Daq vIqraq vIleghtaHvIS taghpu'bogh 'oy' vIqImHa'
In the above example, as well as the Ca'NoN rudellian plague example, we have:
"{-Daq}ed noun (all other crap i.e subordinate & relative clauses) (verb of the sentence)"
With the {-Daq}ed noun, referring to the "all other crap", instead of the "verb of the sentence".
But could we have as well the following ?
"{-Daq}ed noun (verb of the sentence) (all other crap i.e subordinate & relative clauses)"
With the {-Daq}ed noun, still referring to the "all other crap" ?
Or in order for the {-Daq}ed noun to be able to refer to the "all other crap", the "all other crap" need to necessarily follow, right next to it in the sentence ?
~ mayqel *I love maltz* qunen'oS _______________________________________________ tlhIngan-Hol mailing list tlhIngan-Hol@lists.kli.org http://lists.kli.org/listinfo.cgi/tlhingan-hol-kli.org
On 1/29/2019 9:58 AM, mayqel qunenoS wrote:
There's something additional I would like to ask.
SuStel;
vaS'a'Daq vIqraq vIleghtaHvIS taghpu'bogh 'oy' vIqImHa' In the above example, as well as the Ca'NoN rudellian plague example, we have:
"{-Daq}ed noun (all other crap i.e subordinate & relative clauses) (verb of the sentence)"
With the {-Daq}ed noun, referring to the "all other crap", instead of the "verb of the sentence".
But could we have as well the following ?
"{-Daq}ed noun (verb of the sentence) (all other crap i.e subordinate & relative clauses)"
With the {-Daq}ed noun, still referring to the "all other crap" ?
Or in order for the {-Daq}ed noun to be able to refer to the "all other crap", the "all other crap" need to necessarily follow, right next to it in the sentence ?
As you know, the syntax of a basic sentence is <time expressions> <adverbials and syntactic nouns> <objects> <verb> <subjects> and you further know that subordinate clauses that aren't purpose or relative clauses can go here or here: <subordinate clause> <basic sentence> <basic sentence> <subordinate clause> Any subordinate clause, whether purpose, relative, or otherwise is simply a basic sentence with a special suffix stuck on the end of the verb. *wa'Hu' nom vaS'a'Daq HIch bachta' HoD*/Yesterday the captain quickly fired a pistol at the Great Hall./ *wa'Hu' nom vaS'a'Daq HIch bachta'bogh HoD* /the captain who quickly fired a pistol at the Great Hall yesterday/the pistol which the captain fired at the Great Hall yesterday/ *wa'Hu' nom vaS'a'Daq HIch bachta'meH HoD*/in order that the captain had fired a pistol at the Great Hall quickly/ *wa'Hu' nom vaS'a'Daq HIch bachta'chugh HoD*/if the captain fired a pistol quickly at the Great Hall yesterday/ *wa'Hu' nom vaS'a'Daq HIch bachta'mo' HoD*/because the captain fired a pistol quickly at the Great Hall yesterday/ So all you have to do is build your subordinate clause, then put it in the proper place relative to the main clause. Purpose clauses have to go in front of the main clause, relative clauses are simply noun phrases, and all other subordinate clauses go either before or after the main clause. Just remember that you don't "split" clauses — at least, not without reaching for parenthetical phrases, which are not in evidence anywhere in Okrand's writing. Just plug in entire clauses where they belong. Theoretically there's no limit to the number of nested or strung-together clauses you could put together. As a practical matter of comprehension, you don't want to go too deep into it. -- SuStel http://trimboli.name
On 1/29/2019 11:34 AM, SuStel wrote:
*wa'Hu' nom vaS'a'Daq HIch bachta'bogh HoD* /the captain who quickly fired a pistol at the Great Hall yesterday/the pistol which the captain fired at the Great Hall yesterday/
*wa'Hu' nom vaS'a'Daq HIch bachta'meH HoD*/in order that the captain had fired a pistol at the Great Hall quickly/
These are, of course, in error. The second version of the first translation is missing a /quickly/ and the second translation is missing a /yesterday. /*Hagh qoHpu' neH HeghtaHvIS SuvwI'pu'!* -- SuStel http://trimboli.name
Sorry for insisting on this, but grammar terms confuse me; usually, I'm better able to understand things through examples. So, lets take the initial Ca'NoN sentence.. {qarDaSQa'Daq ruDelya' rop'a' Hergh qengbogh yo' Dabot} Intercept rudellian plague relief convoy to cardassian union Suppose we altered/butchered it, by writing: {qarDaSQa'Daq Dubot ruDelya' rop'a' Hergh qengbogh yo'} In the altered sentence, could the {qarDaSQa'Daq} still refer to the {ruDelya' rop'a' Hergh qengbogh yo'} ? That is, could it mean "the rudellian plague relief convoy to the cardassian union intercepts you" ? Or the only way this could be interpreted is, "the rudellian plague relief convoy intercepts you at the cardassian union" ? mayqel *I love maltz* qunen'oS
On 1/29/2019 11:56 AM, mayqel qunenoS wrote:
Sorry for insisting on this, but grammar terms confuse me; usually, I'm better able to understand things through examples.
So, lets take the initial Ca'NoN sentence..
{qarDaSQa'Daq ruDelya' rop'a' Hergh qengbogh yo' Dabot} Intercept rudellian plague relief convoy to cardassian union
Suppose we altered/butchered it, by writing:
{qarDaSQa'Daq Dubot ruDelya' rop'a' Hergh qengbogh yo'}
In the altered sentence, could the {qarDaSQa'Daq} still refer to the {ruDelya' rop'a' Hergh qengbogh yo'} ? That is, could it mean "the rudellian plague relief convoy to the cardassian union intercepts you" ? Or the only way this could be interpreted is, "the rudellian plague relief convoy intercepts you at the cardassian union" ?
It could only be interpreted as the latter. You've "split" the *-Daq* noun from its clause and stuck it on another clause. This is the intended relative clause: *qarDaqQa'Daq ruDelya' rop'a' Hergh qengbogh yo'*/fleet which carries Rudellian plague medicine to the Cardassian Union./ That clause is a single noun phrase. Think of it as a unit. X = *qarDaqQa'Daq ruDelya' rop'a' Hergh qengbogh yo'*. The main clause is *X Dabot.* Just put the relative clause X in its place. If you wanted to say the fleet carrying Rudellian plague medicine to the Cardassian Union blocks you, it would be *Dubot X.* You have to put /all/ of X where the X appears. You can't split pieces of it to go somewhere else in the sentence. *Dubot **qarDaqQa'Daq ruDelya' rop'a' Hergh qengbogh yo'*. -- SuStel http://trimboli.name
ok, now I understand; thanks ! However, I just made an interesting observation. In the case where we write {Dubot qarDaqQa'Daq ruDelya' rop'a' Hergh qengbogh yo'}, there's no ambiguity. So, wouldn't it be "safe" to actually use something like this ? ~ mayqel *I love maltz* qunen'oS
On 1/29/2019 12:13 PM, mayqel qunenoS wrote:
ok, now I understand; thanks !
However, I just made an interesting observation. In the case where we write {Dubot qarDaqQa'Daq ruDelya' rop'a' Hergh qengbogh yo'}, there's no ambiguity. So, wouldn't it be "safe" to actually use something like this ?
If it happens to be what you're trying to say, yes. When writing or translating, I often choose which side of a main clause to put a subordinate clause by deciding whether any bits dangling off of either clause will be ambiguous. -- SuStel http://trimboli.name
participants (3)
-
mayqel qunenoS -
SuStel -
Will Martin