[Tlhingan-hol] KLBC: {-'e'} mojaq

[John R. Harness]

Hi! Essentially you are asking about the correct placement of {-'e'} in the
"to be" construction. In the case you gave, you should treat the name and
the title {gorqon Qang} "Chancellor Gorkon" as one unit. (Now, I looked in
both TKD and KGT and couldn't find explicit instruction on this; but,
mu'tlheghlIj wa' wej je both seem very wrong to my ear. {Qanqor'e' HoD}?
hmm.... don't think so.)

So, I believe that your second sentence is correct.
tlhIngan ghaH gorqon Qang'e'

Incidentally -- Originally, I mis-read incorrectly and thought you had
included two names, something like "Gorkon and Kang are Klingons." This
prompts a question that I'm not sure about; so, qun, what do you think?

tlhInganpu' chaH gorqon qang'e' je'
tlhInganpu' chaH gorqon'e' qang je'
tlhInganpu' chaH gorqon'e' qeng'e' je'
tlhInganpu' chaH gorqon qeng je''e'

Where do the topic marker(s) go?

'arHa



> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 2
> Date: Sat, 5 Dec 2015 19:04:08 +0200
> From: qunnoQ HoD <mihkoun at gmail.com>
> To: tlhIngan Hol mailing list <tlhingan-hol at kli.org>
> Subject: [Tlhingan-hol] KLBC: {-'e'} mojaq
> Message-ID:
>         <
> CAP7F2cKxYbi7czoCXXP1e_xsBChNGA+hFbQbF4dtE0JAgFf0Qw at mail.gmail.com>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
>
> 'arHa',HIQaH vIneH. wej mu'tlheghmeyvam tIlaD.
>
> mu'tlhegh wa' : tlhIngan ghaH gorqon'e' Qang
> mu'tlhegh cha' : tlhIngan ghaH gorqon Qang'e'
> mu'tlhegh wej : tlhIngan ghaH gorqon'e' Qang'e'
>
> lugh mu'tlhegh nuq ? nuq 'ej qatlh HIja'. wa'DIch ja' 'arHa' 'ej
> SIbI'Ha' ja' Hoch po'wI'pu'.
>
> qun HoD
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mail.kli.org/pipermail/tlhingan-hol/attachments/20151206/d1f13f14/attachment.html>