[Tlhingan-hol] vulqa'nganpu'

[SuStel]

On 12/31/2015 12:51 AM, Rohan Fenwick wrote:
> ghItlhpu' lojmIt tI'wI' nuv, jatlh:
>  > In English, we sometimes start a sentence with "But", but so far
>  > as we know, in Klingon, "but" is always a conjunction combining
>  > two sentences to form one longer sentence, and in Klingon you
>  > can't have a Sentence As Object construction with {'e'} referring
>  > back to a conjoined sentence.
>
> The way you phrase this last part implies a certainty about this
> prohibition that I'm pretty sure we don't have.
>
> taH:
>  > The {'e'} refers to the preceding sentence, not the first half of the
>  > current sentence.
>
> Because syntactically {'e'} is identified as a pronoun in TKD (sections
> 5.1, 6.2.5), I don't see why there's any reason it can't reach across
> the "conjunction gap", if you like, to make reference to something in
> the previous clause (which is itself also formally a sentence; see TKD
> 6.2.5, where it says that the conjoined parts must be well-formed
> sentences). We know that other pronouns are quite capable of reaching
> across a conjunction for their anaphoric reference:
>
> pa' ghomta' SuvwI' 'ej pa' loS chaH
> "the warriors had assembled there and they [the warriors] were waiting
> there" (paq'batlh: paq'raD 14.3)
>
> so since {'e'} is also said to be a pronoun, I wouldn't say that there's
> any formal reason why it couldn't do the same thing, simply taking the
> entire sentence as the basis for its anaphora rather than one of its
> arguments:
>
> pa' ghomta' SuvwI' 'ej 'e' vIlegh
> "the warriors had assembled there and I saw that [the warriors had
> assembled there]"
>
> Just because two sentences are joined with a conjunction to make one
> larger sentence doesn't mean that the two conjoined clauses are not
> themselves also sentences.

I tend to agree, because I think {'e'} can probably be used in ways 
other than the strict formula we get in TKD. I am thinking particularly 
of {'e' neHbe' vavoy} "that's not what my father wanted (daddy didn't 
want that)" from Star Trek VI. In violation of the rule that {neH} 
doesn't use {'e'}, Azetbur uses {'e'} to refer to an entire speech that 
OTHERS have just given.

And let's not forget that many of us like to quip {net Sov} to something 
SOMEONE ELSE has just said. Where does that come from, if not a 
willingness to stretch the definition of the sentence-as-object 
construction?

-- 
SuStel
http://trimboli.name