[Tlhingan-hol] KLBC: {-'e'} and {-bogh}

[lojmIttI'wI'nuv]

I wrote a longer message earlier and decided not to send it because this is still marked KLBC, but I see that there’s some communication difficulties here between two people, neither of whom are the BG, so…

The issue here is not so much what {-‘e’} does as the basics of what a relative clause (that part of a sentence wrapped around the verb with {-bogh} means and what it does.

The verb with {-bogh} tells you something about a “head noun”. It’s either a parenthetical remark about it, or it is something that would identify this particular item as distinguishable from other nouns that share the same name. English examples:

“The officer lectured the boy, who was bored to tears.” This is parenthetical. It tells you something about the boy who was being lectured.

“The officer praised the boy who answered the question correctly.” This indicates a specific boy, different from all the other boys because he’s the one who answered the question correctly.

In English, we differentiate parenthetical from identifying clauses by using a comma with parenthetical clauses, but omitting the comma for a clause that identifies the specific item. Klingon apparently does not differentiate between these two types of relative clauses.

In both cases “boy” is the head noun because in the first sentence, the officer lectures the boy, and the boy is bored to tears. It’s the same boy, and he participates in both being lectured and being bored to tears. The officer is not bored to tears. The officer does not lecture the tears. Only the head noun participates both in the relative clause and the main clause of the sentence.

In the second sentence, the officer praises the boy and the boy correctly answered the question. The officer didn’t praise the question. The officer is only in the main clause, not part of the relative clause, and the question is only in the relative clause, not in the main clause.

See?

So, if we sort out what words exist in the main clause and what words exist in the relative clause, it starts to make more sense.

chalDaq Qob nIn Hutlhbogh muD Duj.

{chalDaq} is part of the main clause. Whatever is happening, it is happening in the sky.

{Qob} is part of the main clause. Something is being dangerous in the sky.

{nIn} is definitely part of the relative clause. If it is the head noun of the relative clause, it is also part of the main clause (like the boy in the second example above). If it is not the head noun of the relative clause, then it is NOT part of the main clause (like the test in the second example above).

{Hutlhbogh} is part of the relative clause. The {-bogh} tells you that you are dealing with a relative clause. The danger is in the sky. The lacking MAY be in the sky, but that’s not what {chalDaq} is marking. {chalDaq} is telling you where something is dangerous, not where something is lacking.

{muD Duj} is part of the relative clause. If it is the head noun of the relative clause, then it is also the subject of {Qob}. 

So, you know two things:

1. You know that the aircraft is lacking fuel.

2. Either the aircraft missing the fuel, or the fuel that is being lacked by the aircraft, is dangerous. In the sky.

So, the listener can logically conclude from context whether the aircraft or the fuel is dangerous, or the speaker can explicitly mark the head noun with {-‘e’}. By marking the head noun, you know which noun is dangerous.

There is no grammatical explanation for how the sky could be interpreted as dangerous in this sentence. It’s a locative. It is not in the subject position. It can’t be the subject of {Qob}. No way. No how. Not by the wildest interpretation of Klingon grammar. Yes, {chal} is in the same sentence as {Qob}, but it is definitely, with no controversy, NOT the subject.

pItlh
lojmIt tI'wI'nuv



> On Jan 19, 2016, at 9:31 AM, mayql qunenoS <mihkoun at gmail.com> wrote:
> 
> thank you De'vID for replying, but I still don't understand. So, I
> will translate your reply into DIvI' Hol.
> 
> {chalDaq Qob nIn Hutlhbogh muD Duj} ghItlhlu'chugh, cha' DuHmey tu'lu':
> if someone writes {chalDaq Qob nIn Hutlhbogh muD Duj}, there are two
> possibilities :
> 
> 1. {chalDaq Qob nIn Hutlhbogh muD Duj'e'}
>    the airplane which lacks fuel is dangerous at the sky
> 2. {chalDaq Qob nIn'e' Hutlhbogh muD Duj}
>    ??? (I can't translate this) ..maybe "the fuel which is "lacked"
> by the airplane is dangerous at the sky"???
> 
> nIn Hutlh muD Duj. Duj DamaghmeH {nIn Hutlhbogh muD Duj'e'} yIghItlh.
> the airplane lacks fuel. In order to indicate the airplane you must
> write {nIn Hutlhbogh muD Duj'e'}
> 
> nIn DamaghmeH {nIn'e' Hutlhbogh muD Duj} yIghItlh.
> in order to indicate the fuel you need to write {nIn'e' Hutlhbogh muD Duj}
> 
> mu'tlheghvetlh Dapojchugh, DuHbe' [the sky where there is an airplane
> without fuel is dangerous].
> if you analyze this sentence, it isn't possible [the sky where there
> is an airplane without fuel is dangerous].
> 
> {-bogh}, {chal} je rarlu'pu'be'.
> someone doesn't connect {-bogh} and {chal}.
> 
> ah, ok.. now I see. maybe you try to tell me just that ; that in the
> original sentence the {-bogh} can't refer to {chal}. That no matter
> how I propose to translate it, only one of two things can be dangerous
> : either the airplane, or the fuel.
> 
> is this what you're trying to tell me ?
> 
> qunnoq
> 
> On Tue, Jan 19, 2016 at 4:01 PM, De'vID <de.vid.jonpin at gmail.com> wrote:
>> cpt qunnoq:
>>> Qov : > chalDaq Qob nIn Hutlhbogh muD Duj.
>>> jIH : > I would translate this as <an airplane which lacks fuel is
>>> dangerous at the
>>>> sky or maybe <the sky (where there is) an airplane without fuel is
>>>> dangerous.
>>> De'vID : > {chalDaq Qob nIn'e' Hutlhbogh muD Duj} yIqel.
>>> 
>>> I don't understand this. how does the placement of {-'e'} on {nIn}
>>> alter the translations I wrote ?
>> 
>> {chalDaq Qob nIn Hutlhbogh muD Duj} ghItlhlu'chugh, cha' DuHmey tu'lu':
>> 
>> 1. {chalDaq Qob nIn Hutlhbogh muD Duj'e'}
>> 2. {chalDaq Qob nIn'e' Hutlhbogh muD Duj}
>> 
>> nIn Hutlh muD Duj. Duj DamaghmeH {nIn Hutlhbogh muD Duj'e'} yIghItlh.
>> nIn DamaghmeH {nIn'e' Hutlhbogh muD Duj} yIghItlh.
>> 
>> mu'tlheghvetlh Dapojchugh, DuHbe' [the sky where there is an airplane
>> without fuel is dangerous]. {-bogh}, {chal} je rarlu'pu'be'.
>> 
>> --
>> De'vID
>> 
>> _______________________________________________
>> Tlhingan-hol mailing list
>> Tlhingan-hol at kli.org
>> http://mail.kli.org/mailman/listinfo/tlhingan-hol
> 
> _______________________________________________
> 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/20160119/59c60a7d/attachment-0001.html>