[Tlhingan-hol] vulqa'nganpu'

[Rohan Fenwick]

ghItlhpu' lojmIt tI'wI' nuv, jatlh:
> I'm more than a little certain that TKD explains that while we
> may translate Sentence As Object into one sentence in English,
> in Klingon, the two sentences are separate. A conjunction
> makes the two sentences one. They are no longer separate.

TKD 6.2.5 says nothing about the two sentences of an SAO being "separate". It does say that for this kind of construction, "what is a single sentence in English is often two sentences in Klingon" (TKD p.65). But if it is done with two sentences, why can't those two sentences be conjoined with a grammatical tool that exists for the purpose of chaining sentences together? And the use of the word "often" here is indicative to me that there are times when the result of an SAO may be a single sentence. When two subsentences are linked by a conjunction to form the larger complex sentence would certainly fall into that category.

taH:
> You seem to have great confidence in my error.

No, merely a lack of confidence in the basis for your certainty.

taH:
> 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.

As SuStel has noted, a sentence can have another sentence as a subunit.

(poD vay')

taH:
> But you do have to come up with some kind of actual example,
> rather than an opinion.

The same goes for you, with all respect, and that was all I was trying to point out in my original email on the topic: it's not so much about what the canon contains, as what it doesn't contain, and what I couldn't see in canon was the basis for your initial, quite categorical statement about what doesn't qualify as a sentence for the purposes of SAO.

At any rate, after having sifted through the canon, I finally did find two examples in the paq'batlh, though with the conjunction {'ej} rather than {'ach}:

SoHvaD quvwI' qem Hegh 'e' wIvDI' Hegh
pop Hevchugh quvwI'
'ej 'e' DaqaSmoHchugh jIlaj
"The honorable will be rewarded
After death chooses to bring them to you,
If you make it so, I accept."

(paq'raD 16.25-27)

Now, the problem with this one is that {'e'} could also conceivably refer back to {Heghpu'wI'pu' DamIlHa'moH SoH} in the previous stanza, instead of the first of the two conjoined clauses, {pop Hevchugh quvwI'}. But then there's this example from a little later in the paq'batlh:

mInDu'wIj tIbuS molor
vay' qalay'ta'
'ej batlh 'e' vIpab
"Look me in the eye, Molor,
I gave you my word of honor,
And I will respect it."

(paq'raD 21.1-3)

On this one there's no alternative reading; there's no preceding stanza in this canto. {'e'} must refer to {vay' qalay'ta'}.

QeS 'utlh 		 	   		  
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mail.kli.org/pipermail/tlhingan-hol/attachments/20160101/6bff4405/attachment.html>