[Tlhingan-hol] vulqa'nganpu'

Thu Dec 31 10:21:01 PST 2015

I’m trying to follow what you are suggesting, but the problem is that a conjunction creates a complex sentence. Once you’ve joined two sentences with a conjunction, you can’t then deal with separate parts as if they weren’t joined.

Okay, let’s back up and look at the group of words we have been given:

> maHotlaHmo' manenchoHlaH, 'ach tugh 'e' vItlhoj.

What is {‘ach} joining?

It appears to be joining {maHotlaHmo’ manenchoHlaH} and {tugh ‘e’ vItlhoj}. I don’t see any smaller independent clauses. {maHotlaHmo’} is not a simple sentence. It’s a dependent clause.

So, when you join the two sentences shown, the {‘e’} has to refer to something said earlier than {maHotlaHmo’ manenchoHlaH}. But there isn’t anything before that. He wants {‘e’} to refer to {maHotlaHmo’ manenchoHlaH}. That’s why {‘ach} doesn’t work. That’s why it breaks his intended use of Sentence As Object construction.

Let’s make sure I’m not missing anything. Back to the original message:

****************************************************************************
'op ben, qaDmey law' vIbamtaHmo', QI'Sta qarur, vay' vIHot vIneHbe'.
some years ago, because I was facing many problems, I resembled you
QI'Sta, because I didn't want to feel anything.

maHotlaHmo' manenchoHlaH, 'ach tugh 'e' vItlhoj. (is the {'ach tugh
'e' vItlhoj} correct ?)
however soon I realized, that because we are able to feel, we are able
to grow/mature.
****************************************************************************

Nope. Nothing before that. He’s not suggesting that he’s trying to say:

“Because we are able to feel, we are able to grow/mature, but soon I realized that some years ago, because I was facing many problems, I resembled you, QI’Sta, because I didn’t want to feel anything.”

Yes, that would be complex to understand, if that’s what he meant, but that’s not what he meant, judging by what he puts as the English translation. And he asks if {‘ach tugh ‘e’ vItlhoj} correct. The simple answer is, “No, it’s not correct.” The reason it’s not correct is that it grammatically combines the sentence referred to by {‘e’} with the sentence containing {‘e’}.

As you said, {‘e’} does not refer just to an earlier clause; it refers to an earlier sentence. Or at least that’s what it generally is supposed to do. But in this case, it doesn’t, hence the error.

I understand how easy the error is to produce. All you have to do is ignore that {‘e’} always refers to a separate sentence. Since we never punctuate it as two sentences, we can easily forget this requirement.

I think we should start punctuating it as two explicitly separate sentences. If we mark sentence boundaries with periods, this is one place we should be doing it that we have generally not done. I think it’s a very bad habit. The period would remind us of what is really going on here.

Otherwise, what we have is {‘e’} being used as a conjunction that is placed differently than any other conjunction. Instead of being at the sentence boundary between what was previously a pair of complete sentences, we place it in the direct object position of the second independent clause, and let any earlier words in the second clause mush back into the first sentence.

Well.. actually, that’s what we’ve been doing. Ugly business, that.

So, am I missing anything here? Did I misinterpret the original intent? Is there any reason for {‘e’} to refer to something that is not a separate, preceding sentence?

lojmIt tI’wI’ nuv ‘utlh
Door Repair Guy, Retired Honorably

> On Dec 31, 2015, at 12:44 PM, SuStel <sustel at trimboli.name> wrote:
> 
> 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/
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Tlhingan-hol mailing list
> Tlhingan-hol at kli.org
> http://mail.kli.org/mailman/listinfo/tlhingan-hol