[Tlhingan-hol] Qun qa'

[Rohan Fenwick]

ghItlhpu' SuStel, jatlh:
> ... You couldn't add it after the verb, either,
> because {wI'el je maH'e'} that would mean something like "*WE* enter it in
> addition to some other thing we did."

Well, no. The example from ST6 shows that you can do this exactly to mean "WE enter it in addition to someone else entering it":

notlh veS, 'a tugh manotlhchoH je maH.
War is obsolete, as we are in danger of becoming.

That is, "IT is obsolete, and soon WE TOO will become obsolete." So it seems that {je} has potential scope over the verb, or any argument in the same verb phrase with which a contrast can be drawn. I'd have no problem with {HIvje'Daq HIq vIqang; balDaq HIq vIqang je}.
 
jang ghunchu'wI', jatlh:
> Uh, no. {je} is a noun conjunction, not an adverbial. What TKD
> actually says (in section 5.3. Conjunctions) is this:
> The noun conjunction {je} has an additional function: when it
> follows a verb, it means "also, too".
>   {qaleghpu' je} "I also saw you, I saw you too"

(poD vay')
 
> What it is *not* said to mean is "I saw (and did something else to) you."

ghunchu'wI', you and I already had this debate some years ago. {{:) I reproduce here our exchange from 2011:

bIjatlhpu':
> As TKD describes it in Section 5.3, {je} used this way is still a noun
> conjunction. {HIq tlhutlh je} "he drank liquor too" could mean either
> "he and others drank liquor" or "he drank liquor and something else".
> The null prefix suggest to me that the former meaning is unlikely. But
> it absolutely does not mean "also, he drank liquor."

qajangpu' jIH, jIjatlhpu':
> With respect, yes, that's exactly what it means. SkyBox card SP2 has the
> following text describing the tlhIngan may' taj:
> ghop luQan tajHommey. pe'laH je.
> The bladelets protect the hand. They can also cut.
> (My translation, because the English version on the card is quite free.)

chojangpu', bIjatlhpu':
> I've always read the Klingon text as meaning "They too can cut." That
> is, the main blade cuts, and so do the small side ones. I believe the
> English supports my interpretation, referring to "another set of
> cutting edges."

qajangpu', jIjatlhpu':
> Similarly, Marc said in an MSN posting back in 1996:
> qep'a' wejDIchDaq jatlhtaH tlhIngan Hol HaDwI'pu'. ghoHtaH je. tIv'eghtaH
> je.
> [At the third qep'a' Klingon students will speak. Also, they will learn.
> Also, they will enjoy themselves.]

chojangpu', bIjatlhpu':
> Is that your translation too? I'm certain the note was posted several
> months *after* qep'a' wejDIch, so the future tense is not appropriate.
> It also substitutes "learn" for "argue". But the Klingon does seem to
> contradict the "absolutely does not mean" I wrote above. The last
> sentence in particular totally wipes out my uneasiness about
> {Hotlh'egh je}.
> Assuming that the note is accurately reported (and that its usage
> wasn't identified later as a silly mistake), I withdraw my objection.

For my part, I analyse {je} as two distinct, but related, lexemes. One is a bog-standard noun conjunction. One is a homophonous irregular adverbial (though no doubt derived from the first), which, like {neH} and {jay'}, doesn't follow the general rules of adverbials elsewhere.

QeS 'utlh
 		 	   		  
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mail.kli.org/pipermail/tlhingan-hol/attachments/20151118/d3760dd9/attachment.html>