[Tlhingan-hol] Concerning the {'e'} topic suffix

[qunnoQ HoD]

thank you all very much ! I understand now !

On Wed, Nov 4, 2015 at 8:29 PM, Felix Malmenbeck <felixm at kth.se> wrote:

> I believe you've confused the function of -'e' with the function of -bogh,
> possibly because the two often occur together.
>
>
> -'e' marks a noun as the topic of a phrase, and is required for the
> subject of {ghaH}, {chaH}, {'oH} and {bIH}.
>
>
> When you say {puqpu''e' qIp yaS.}, you're saying "The officer(s) hit the
> CHILDREN.", with emphasis on the children.
>
>
> When you say {puqpu' qIp yaS'e'.}, you're saying "The OFFICER(S) hit the
> children.", with emphasis on the officer(s).
>
>
> When using a sentence with -bogh (relative suffix; functions as "who",
> "which" and "that" in the sense that you're describing) and both a subject
> and an object, -'e' is sometimes used to distinguish which is being
> referred to.
>
>
> {voDleH luchotta'bogh nuvpu''e' vIlegh.}
>
> = "I saw the people (nuvpu''e') who murdered the Emperor (voDleH)."
>
>
> {voDleH'e' luchotta'bogh nuvpu' vIlegh.}
>
> = "I saw the emperor (voDleH'e') who was murdered by the people (nuvpu')."
>
>
> Sometimes this isn't necessary, though:
>
>
> {voDleH luchotta'bogh nuvpu' wIlegh.}
>
> = "We saw the emperor who was murdered by the people."
>
> (wI- specifies a singular object, and nuvpu' is plural, so it must be
> referring to the emperor, not the people)
>
>
> {voDleH luchotta'bogh nuvpu' DIlegh.}
>
> = "I saw the people who murdered the Emperor."
>
> (Same reasoning as above, except DI- specifies a plural object)
>
>
> ------------------------------
> *From:* qunnoQ HoD <mihkoun at gmail.com>
> *Sent:* Wednesday, November 4, 2015 19:11
> *To:* tlhIngan Hol mailing list
> *Subject:* [Tlhingan-hol] Concerning the {'e'} topic suffix
>
> having just finished studying the pronouns,along with the {'e'} topic
> suffix,I can't help but wonder the following..
>
> lets take these two examples,along with their given translations :
>
> puqpu' chaH qama'pu"e' The prisoners are children.
> pa'DajDaq ghaHtaH la"e' The commander is in his quarters.
>
> As i understood the {'e'} means <<that>> ; so the above translations
> should be
>
> the prisoners that are children (implying that there are prisoners too,who
> aren't children)
> the commander that is in his quarters (implying that there is another
> commander as well,who isn't in his quarters)
>
> alternatively (because i didn't quite understand,to whom the {'e'} is
> supposed to be shoved) the aforementioned translations could be modified
> as..
>
> the children that are prisoners (implying that there are children,who
> aren't prisoners)
> the quarters that have the commander within them (implying that there are
> quarters.that don't have a commander inside)
>
> I'm confused by all these alternate possibilities.. Could someone please
> enlighten me ?
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mail.kli.org/pipermail/tlhingan-hol/attachments/20151104/12a4264a/attachment.html>