[Tlhingan-hol] Klingon Word of the Day: lIng

Tue Feb 2 09:18:23 PST 2016

Good, strong argument, though not exactly “showing what canon evidence we have supporting this,” as you suggested earlier.

First of all, just as Okrand never explicitly talked about the difference between direct and indirect objects, he never explicitly talked about the difference between restrictive and descriptive relative clauses.

Just to put all readers on the same page: In English, a restrictive relative clause is one that identifies a noun as unique from others of the same name, like “I want a sword that can pass through the torso of a prisoner in one swipe.” What is the sword that I want? I exclusively want one that can pass through a prisoner in one swipe. The relative clause identifies the noun. The set of all swords is restricted to include only those that satisfy the description of the clause.

“My chosen sword, which glitters in the candlelight, is a joy to behold.” This is a descriptive relative clause. “My chosen sword” was already identified. The relative clause merely describes something that does not require identification. It is a parenthetical remark about the object.

The grammatical difference is that in proper English, we use “which” and a comma for descriptive relative clauses, but we use “that” and no comma to indicate a restrictive relative clause… when the noun is an object. When it is a person, we use “who” for both restrictive and descriptive relative clauses, but we use commas to offset the descriptive relative clause and we don’t do this for restrictive relative clauses.

Descriptive: “The tallest prisoner, who lied at the trial, was executed.” We executed the tallest prisoner. He lied at his trial.
Restrictive: “The tallest prisoner who lied at the trial was executed.” There were several prisoners who lied at the trial. We executed the tallest of these liars. There was a taller prisoner, but he was truthful at the trial.

You can see how the difference can be important, especially to the tallest prisoner.

Back to TKD: Add Okrand's tendency to avoid punctuation, and his use of both “which” (descriptive) and “that” (restrictive) as relative pronouns in section 6.2.3 in TKD, suggests that Klingon can have both descriptive and restrictive relative clauses.

“The dog which is running” would be descriptive in English (and technically should have a comma). “The cat that is sleeping” would be restrictive in English. And, of course, he tantalizingly tosses in “the restaurant where we ate”, which he never gets around to explaining at all… much to our chagrin…

Sometimes when trying to understand things from TKD I feel like Sigourney Weaver dodging the mashers in Galaxy Quest: “This scene was badly written!"

So, your suggestion that all relative clauses are restrictive could be true, but there’s no proof of it. But no, I’m not going to be a jerk and pretend that this makes any difference whatsoever in terms of the use of {jaj naQ} vs. {jaj Hoch}, and I’ve never suggested that {jaj Hoch} wasn’t perfectly acceptable. It obviously is acceptable, and might even be preferable.

I’m just not convinced that this is the same thing as saying that {jaj naQ} is unacceptable, which is all I’ve ever wondered about here. The strongest evidence I see here is that there isn’t any canon showing its use. Considering the paucity of canon overall, that is never a very convincing argument, though I have many times, myself, wished that it were.

I’ll leave it that {jaj Hoch} is clearly acceptable and the jury is out on {jaj naQ}, so until canon appears otherwise, we should prefer {jaj Hoch}.

pItlh
lojmIt tI'wI'nuv

> On Feb 2, 2016, at 11:03 AM, SuStel <sustel at trimboli.name> wrote:
> 
> Here's the post that vanished before I could send it. I don't think I'll ever find a completely satisfactory mail client. Sigh.
> 
> On 2/1/2016 5:15 PM, lojmIttI'wI'nuv wrote:
>> I’m just curious if this is a consensus or something that has any canon
>> behind it. I would have thought that {jaj naQ} made sense as “an entire
>> day”. {jaj Hoch} makes equally good sense, so I’m not challenging this
>> as a perfectly fine option.
>> 
>> I would have thought that “a day, which is whole”  would be more like
>> {naQbogh jaj}.
> 
> I see no difference between {Xbogh Y} and {Y X}. Klingon relative clauses are restrictive. {naQbogh jaj} means "a day which is whole (and not one that is partial)." It is not merely describing the day; it is limiting it to the class of days that are whole... which is all of them.
> 
> Klingon adjectival verbs are also restrictive. {tlhIngan Quch vIlegh} means "I see the happy Klingon (not any other kind of Klingon)." It does not mean "I see the Klingon (who happens to be happy)." Likewise, {jaj naQ} means "day which is whole (not any other kind of day)," not "day (which happens to be whole)." All days are whole, unless the planet explodes beneath your feet during one.
> 
> We do have evidence, however, that using {HochHom} after a noun means "most of <noun>." {tera' vatlh DIS poH cha'maH wej HochHom} "most of the 23rd century" (S15). We have evidence that using {bID} after a noun means "half of <noun>." {yopwaH bID} "shorts" (i.e., half of pants); {paH bID} "skirt" (i.e., half of gown) (TalkNow!). We have {Hoch} only in {targhlIj yab tIn law' no'lI' Hoch yabDu' tIn puS} "your targ has a bigger brain than all your ancestors put together," though this could be either {[no'lI' Hoch] yabDu'} "the brains of [all your ancestors]" or {no'lI' [Hoch yabDu']} "[all the brains] of your ancestors," so it's not clear. In general, I believe that nouns expressing an abstract quantity of something (including {'op}, which has never come after a noun) can be modified by nouns genitively to mean "<quantity> of <noun>."
> 
> Meanwhile, the only use of {naQ} as a verb that we have is {cha' choQmey naQ} "two full decks" (meaning they're not half-decks) (BoP). It does not mean "all of two decks." {naQ} has never been used to mean "all of <noun>."
> 
> -- 
> SuStel
> http://trimboli.name
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Tlhingan-hol mailing list
> Tlhingan-hol at kli.org
> http://mail.kli.org/mailman/listinfo/tlhingan-hol

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mail.kli.org/pipermail/tlhingan-hol/attachments/20160202/5373209f/attachment-0001.html>