[Tlhingan-hol] {ra'} as verb of saying

[lojmIt tI'wI' nuv]

The first, as others note, is fine. The second is confusing in a way that makes me want to declare it ungrammatical, but that doesn't immediately indicate that it is. 

It's not reported speech. That wouldn't use {'e'}. 

It is at least redundant. {yIjegh} is already a command and the speaker is obviously the one making it. What meaning do you expect {'e' vIra'} to add?

Sent from my iPad
lojmIt tI'wI' nuv

> On Feb 5, 2016, at 5:20 PM, Brent Kesler <brent.of.all.people at gmail.com> wrote:
> 
> Interesting. I was just pondering a similar question. What do people thinking about using imperative prefixes in {'e'} clauses?
> 
> For example, "I order you to surrender!"
> 1. bIjegh 'e' vIra'!
> 2. ? yIjegh 'e' vIra'!
> 
> I think 1 is acceptable and standard. What do people think about 2? Ungrammatical? Grammatical but marked?
> 
> bI'reng
> 
>> On Fri, Feb 5, 2016 at 10:38 AM, SuStel <sustel at trimboli.name> wrote:
>> paq'batlh page 125:
>> 
>>    qamchIy HurDaq
>>       SuvwI’pu’Daj ra’ qeylIS
>>       SaqSub yIjaH
>> 
>>    Outside Qam-Chee,
>>       Kahless tells his warriors
>>       To go to the Saq'sub.
>> 
>> Here we see {ra'} being used as a verb of saying, as well as having the persons spoken to as its object.
>> 
>> -- 
>> SuStel
>> http://trimboli.name
>> 
>> 
>> _______________________________________________
>> Tlhingan-hol mailing list
>> Tlhingan-hol at kli.org
>> http://mail.kli.org/mailman/listinfo/tlhingan-hol
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Tlhingan-hol mailing list
> Tlhingan-hol at kli.org
> http://mail.kli.org/mailman/listinfo/tlhingan-hol
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mail.kli.org/pipermail/tlhingan-hol/attachments/20160205/a11a4441/attachment.html>