[Tlhingan-hol] vulqa'nganpu'

[De'vID]

SuStel:
> 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.

I know it wasn't what he was trying to do, but (unlike lojmIt tI'wI'
nuv, and like QeS) I think that referring to the first sentence with
both a conjunction and {'e'} is legal.

I think at least part of the confusion over the sentence stems from
the fact that it's ambiguous.

Consider:
{qama' ghaH. luHoHpu' 'ach 'e' vISovbe'.}

Does this mean?
"She was a prisoner. They killed her, but I didn't know (that they killed her)."
"They killed her. But I didn't know that she was a prisoner."

As you suggested, I would've moved the {'ach} up front:
{qama' ghaH, 'ach luHoHpu' 'e' vISovbe'.}
"She was a prisoner, but I didn't know that they killed her."

-- 
De'vID