[Tlhingan-hol] headless {-bogh}?

[lojmIttI'wI'nuv]

We’ve recently flirted with the idea of a headless relative clause. I don’t think it’s the first time we’ve considered the idea. I think it’s been argued about before.

I want to make sure it is widely understood that I’m not bringing this up as an exercise of ego to suggest that I’m so cool that I’ve figured out something nobody else here has figured out. First of all, I think others have already thought about this. Secondly, I’m quite aware of the boundaries of my coolness. I’m just a guy who speaks Klingon better than the average person on the street (setting the bar rather low here), and I’m recently curious about this idea.

Just to be clear about what I’m talking about, Okrand explains in TKD that Klingon uses the verb suffix {-bogh} to do what English does with relative pronouns. It sets up a relative clause, which is basically a mini-sentence describing or identifying a head noun, which then participates in the grammar of a sentence external to the relative clause. The relative clause itself and all the words in it apply only to the relative clause, except for the head noun which is used in both the relative clause and the main clause (the sentence external to the relative clause). That’s what he explains.

But he gives us some canon examples that don’t quite neatly fit this description. SuStel likes to bring up a recording from the Star Trek Klingon game of Okrand saying {Dajatlhbogh vIyajbe’}. As we all recognize, this could have been a flubbed recording, but it is apparently canon, and may have just as easily been intentional. Anyway, this is a case where there is an implied head noun that isn’t spoken. That’s one case that is unexplained in TKD.

For myself, I think that {peghmey Hutlhbogh jaj rur Hovmey Hutlhbogh ram} is another poorly described canon example. We could argue that this was written before the idea of marking the head noun with {-‘e’} was presented, and at that stage of development in the language, context would have to just tell you which noun is the head noun, or you could argue that from context it is obvious that the secrets resemble the stars… or that the day resembles the night… 

Meanwhile, it occurs to me that the secrets don’t really resemble the stars, and the day doesn’t really resemble the night. It’s the entire construction of a day without secrets that resembles the entire construction of a night without stars. Both are exceptional, and in both cases, it feels like something is wrong. Days are supposed to have secrets and nights are supposed to have stars.

So, this is a different case than SuStel’s case. There is no implied head noun, unless the implication is that the entire relative clause is functioning as a head noun. I think that De’vID suggested it’s a kind of Sentence-As-Head-Noun. He didn’t use that phrase. He said Sentence-As-Subject or Sentence-As-Object. I’m choosing Sentence-As-Head-Noun because it can be used as subject or object, and in the case of this canon example, it is used as both.

So, I’m not presenting this as, “This is my cool idea. Hey, aren’t I great?”

I’m saying, we’ve discussed this before from other angles. Maybe it’s time to discuss it again. SuStel has a good point, if the head noun is obvious even when it is unstated. This doesn’t fit the description in TKD, but then, neither does the canon example of days without secrets.

Could it be that relative clauses are more versatile than TKD suggests? I still think that in order to write clear, well-formed Klingon, usually it is probably best to include an explicit, single head-noun and mark it with {-‘e’} if it is not obvious which noun is that head noun, but I’m trying to learn to be more flexible about things, and I’m thinking that maybe {-bogh} deserves a little more attention.

And if I fought this idea too passionately in my past, I apologize for my bone-headedness. We each have our lessons to learn.

pItlh
lojmIt tI'wI'nuv



-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mail.kli.org/pipermail/tlhingan-hol/attachments/20160119/f1e2e9d0/attachment.html>