[Tlhingan-hol] Religious terminology

[qunnoQ HoD]

> So, you might translate that is “Krankor is superior among captains.

bIlugh ! <Krankor is superior among captains> jIQub !

> By the way, qunnoQ, using {-'e'} to mark to head noun of a relative clause is optional. Do it if you want to clarify whether the head noun is the subject or object of > the relative clause.

maj. luq !

jIQubmeH De' law' tunob. 'ach wa'leS vIpoj. DaH jISopqu'nIs 'ej
jIQongnIs. ram paS 'oH..


On Fri, Dec 4, 2015 at 8:40 PM, SuStel <sustel at trimboli.name> wrote:
> On 12/4/2015 1:25 PM, Will Martin wrote:
>>
>> HoDpu'’e’ nIv Qanqor.
>>
>> It basically means, “Krankor is superior (while you think about
>> captains).” So, you might translate that is “Krankor is superior among
>> captains.” Okrand explains this as a “topicalizer”, suggesting that you
>> are presenting the topic of the sentence, but given some of the canon
>> examples, there are those here who strongly believe that he picked the
>> wrong word, even though he apparently picked the RIGHT word when he
>> picked “perfective” for {-pu’}, even as his description of {-pu’} didn’t
>> really convey what perfective apparently means.
>
>
> It's not the same thing. {-'e'} is described in TKD as a topicalizer,
> marking the topic of the sentence. The examples of its use in TKD that claim
> it's a topicalizer shows its use as emphasis, which is a different thing.
> TKD does not, I think, have a true example of {-'e'} as topic, though we
> have at least one in canon.
>
> Meanwhile, {-pu'} is explained correctly by Okrand, but simplistically. "An
> action is completed" is what TKD says, and it is what perfective means. For
> years we tried to add the idea of "... before the time context," which does
> not appear in TKD, and which does not describe the perfective.
>
> By the way, qunnoQ, using {-'e'} to mark to head noun of a relative clause
> is optional. Do it if you want to clarify whether the head noun is the
> subject or object of the relative clause.
>
> Here's a canonical example of a relative clause without the optional {-'e'}:
>
>    Hov ghajbe'bogh ram rur pegh ghajbe'bogh jaj
>    a day without secrets is like a night without stars
>
> If you wanted to use the optional {-'e'} on both relative clauses, it would
> look like this:
>
>    Hov ghajbe'bogh ram'e' rur pegh ghajbe'bogh jaj'e'
>
> Sometimes it is not important to disambiguate. Sometimes it is helpful not
> to. I once write a song called {yIH ghupbogh be' qan} and I liked the
> ambiguity: is it "the old woman who swallowed a tribble" or is it "the
> tribble which the old woman swallowed"? Does it matter?
>
> (If I were writing it today, I'd have said {yIH ghuppu'bogh be' qan}.
>
> --
> SuStel
> http://www.trimboli.name/
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Tlhingan-hol mailing list
> Tlhingan-hol at kli.org
> http://mail.kli.org/mailman/listinfo/tlhingan-hol