[Tlhingan-hol] Ten Commandments in Klingon

[lojmIt tI'wI' nuv 'utlh]

The unique thing about relative clauses, different from any other subordinate clause, is that you have a single word — the head noun — which is used grammatically in two different clauses at the same time. If you ignore the existence of the main clause, the head noun’s location is normal for subject or object within the relative clause. If you ignore the existence of the relative clause, the head noun’s location is normal as the subject or object of the main clause.

This unique grammatical feature makes analysis odd, and it can be approached a couple of different ways. You can look at the relative clause first, and think of it like a sentence with {-bogh} added to the verb, which is how I think of it because it’s simpler that way, and then you place that entire clause into the main clause in the location that the head noun should go in that main clause.

Alternatively, you could look at the main clause first, and then zoom in on the head noun of what will be a relative clause, and wrap the relative clause around that head noun, in front or behind the head noun as is needed to show the head noun’s role in the relative clause. That’s more the way that Okrand seems to be approaching it. That seems a little more complicated to me, though Okrand is in the strange role of inventing a language while pretending to discover and analyze something that is not his invention. His perspective is remarkably different from mine, so I’m not surprised that I don’t see it like he does.

lojmIt tI’wI’ nuv ‘utlh
Door Repair Guy, Retired Honorably



> On Apr 17, 2016, at 5:26 PM, Alan Anderson <qunchuy at alcaco.net> wrote:
> 
> On Sun, Apr 17, 2016 at 5:13 PM, SuStel <sustel at trimboli.name> wrote:
>> ...strictly speaking the head noun is part of the clause. The clause
>> simply obeys normal Klingon sentence order.
> 
> I would like to say the same thing, and so does lojmIt tI'wI' nuv, but
> TKD 6.2.3 actually describes a relative clause as being separate from
> its head noun. In this case, I think TKD's analysis complicates the
> situation, and teaching that the head noun is included makes for a
> more easily understood grammar. However, until we get another
> comprehensive basic introduction to Klingon I'm going to have to add a
> disclaimer anytime I tell someone to consider the relative clause a
> complete sentence containing the head noun.
> 
> "Think of the relative clause as including the head noun, and follow
> the O-V-S word order. TKD makes a distinction between the relative
> clause and its head noun, but the prescribed word order matches what
> you'd get if you treated the noun as part the clause."
> 
> -- ghunchu'wI'
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Tlhingan-hol mailing list
> Tlhingan-hol at kli.org
> http://mail.kli.org/mailman/listinfo/tlhingan-hol