[Tlhingan-hol] vulqa'nganpu'

[SuStel]

On 12/31/2015 12:23 PM, lojmIt tI'wI' nuv 'utlh wrote:
> All these examples still use {‘e’} to refer to separate sentences. The
> only stretch is that they refer to sentences someone ELSE has uttered.
> None of it allows {‘e’} to refer to an earlier clause in the same
> sentence that contains it.

{'e'} does not refer just to an earlier clause; it refers to an earlier 
sentence.

A sentence-as-object says that right in its name: its object is a 
sentence. The object sentence doesn't cease to be a sentence because it 
is referred to by another sentence.

Each component sentence in a sentence-as-object obeys the general rules 
for simple sentences. We can, for instance, put adverbials "inside" the 
complex sentence and on the second simple sentence.


> Next we’ll allow it to refer to dependent clauses within the same sentence.

No we won't. A dependent clause is not a sentence.

> There’s a sentence. It has been uttered. It is complete. Maybe I said
> it. Maybe someone else said it. Now, I tag onto it with {‘e’} in a
> separate second sentence. That’s not the same thing as using a
> conjunction AND {‘e’} to link to, and refer to a sentence. {‘e’} refers
> to a grammatically unlinked sentence.

mayqel is not trying to refer to the first sentence of a 
sentence-as-object with both a conjunction and {'e'}. He's trying to do 
this:

    <simple sentence> 'ach <       sentence-as-object       >
    <simple sentence> <antecedent sentence> 'ach 'e' <verb>

where 'e' refers to <simple sentence>, not <antecedent sentence>.

I think this is perhaps too convoluted to read easily, but I'm not sure 
it's wrong.

-- 
SuStel
http://www.trimboli.name/