[Tlhingan-hol] vulqa'nganpu'

[De'vID]

lojmIt tI'wI' nuv:
>> I quite honestly would interpret {qama’ ghaH. luHoHpu’ ‘ach ‘e’ vISovbe’} to mean “They killed her, but I didn’t know she was a prisoner.”
>>
>> I would also interpret {qama’ ghaH, ‘ach luHoHpu’ ‘e’ vISovbe’} to mean “I didn’t know that [she was a prisoner but they killed her].”
>>
>> You can come up with reasons why you think it should be interpreted otherwise, but I doubt you’ve got a strong argument about why my interpretations are necessarily wrong. I’m simply using the rules of grammar as explained in TKD, and lacking any subsequent, clear information that suggests otherwise.

De'vID:
> I don't think your interpretation is wrong. I think the sentence is
> ambiguous, depending on the order in which {'ach} and {'e'} are
> applied:
> { (qama' ghaH, 'ach luHoHpu') 'e' vISovbe' }
> {qama' ghaH, 'ach ( luHoHpu' 'e' vISovbe' ) }
>
> Both are possible interpretations of the sentence.

The correct interpretation of the above sentence depends on context,
but the Klingon speaking community has had a long history of accepting
interpretations of the second type above (where the {'e'} in {sentence
1 conjunction sentence 2 'e' verb} refers to sentence 2, and not to
the conjoined sentence) as valid.

For example, we find the following in Hamlet's second-most famous soliloquy:
<DaH qaS wIchHoSmey rep. DaH Hoblaw’ molmey.
DaH qo’Daq ngejmeH tlhIchDaj tlhuchlaw’ ghe’’or.
DaH ’aD ’Iw tuj vItlhutlhlaH. ’ej jIwemchu’
DaH ’e’ vIruchlaHmo’, vaj HajnIS pem,
’oH leghchugh neH. SuH, DaH SoSwI’ vIjaHnIS.>
"Tis now the very witching time of night,
When churchyards yawn, and hell itself breathes out
Contagion to this world: now could I drink hot blood,
And do such bitter business as the day
Would quake to look on. Soft! now to my mother."

Note that the {'e'} in {DaH ’aD ’Iw tuj vItlhutlhlaH. ’ej jIwemchu’
DaH ’e’ vIruchlaH[mo'...]} refers to {jIwemchu'}, and not to {DaH 'aD
'Iw tuj vItlhutlhlaH 'ej jIwemchu'}. (This is clear from the English
translation.)

And here's a sentence from from Qo'noS QonoS (from Qov's review of
"Earthlings"):
{qaStaHvIS cha' jaj much lubejpu' latlh 'ej wIbejlaH 'e' lay'laHbe'.}
"For two months, others have watched the movie, and [someone] can't
promise that we'd be able to watch it." (And not "[Someone] can't
promise (for two months, others have watched the movie, and we can't
watch it)", which is apparently how you'd want to interpret it.)

Of course, neither Hamlet, QQ, nor the mailing list archives
constitute canon, but there's an established history of Klingon
speakers accepting that the {'e'} in a construction of the form
{sentence 1 conjunction sentence 2 'e' verb} can refer to sentence 2.

There's nothing which says that {qama’ ghaH, ‘ach luHoHpu’ ‘e’
vISovbe’} has to mean “I didn’t know that [she was a prisoner but they
killed her]”, as you insist. (It could mean that, but it could also
mean "she was a prisoner, but I didn't know they killed her", which
might make more sense in some given context.)

Now, if that interpretation was simply your preferred interpretation
absent any other context, well, that's fine, though I'd think it's
weird to have a preference either way. But you seem to be saying
something much stronger than that. You seem to think the onus is on me
to "come up with reasons why [that sentence] should be interpreted
otherwise" as if it were somehow unnatural to interpret it that way.
As I see it, the sentence has two interpretations which are equally
probable until differentiated by context. If you think your
interpretation is more likely in the absence of context, you'll have
to explain why.

Also, "it is simply unlike anything described in TKD or shown in any
canon" isn't actually good evidence for whether something is allowed
or not. It equally applies to your interpretation that {qama’ ghaH.
luHoHpu’ ‘ach ‘e’ vISovbe’} means “They killed her, but I didn’t know
she was a prisoner.” I don't believe we've seen any canon where {'e'}
is separated from the sentence it's referring to by another sentence
like that, and certainly not in TKD. I can see how such an
interpretation can be constructed from the rules, but it "feels"
forced to me (which means absolutely nothing, because feelings are
subjective).

-- 
De'vID