[Tlhingan-hol] vulqa'nganpu'

[De'vID]

De'vID:
> But, okay, let's say that using {'e'} in the second sentence to refer
> to the first in a conjunction is disallowed. How would you express the
> following, in Klingon?
> "We kill prisoners, and they know it.”

lojmIt tI'wI' nuv:
> It would help to know who “they” are, and what “it” is,

What I mean is (I thought that this was clear):
"We kill prisoners, and they know that we kill prisoners."

It doesn't matter who "they" is. "It" referred to the fact that we
kill prisoners.

lojmIt tI'wI' nuv:
> and there are many
> ways to say it. The simplest is {qama’pu’ DIHoH ‘ej luSov.} Context would
> tell you exactly as much in Klingon about who “they” are and what they know
> as your English statement does.
>
> "We kill prisoners, but they don't know it.”
> qama’pu’ DIHoH ‘ach luSovbe’.

But what is the object of {luSovbe'} here, if not an implicit {'e'}?
(At minimum, it's an implicit {ngoD} or {ghu'} or something like
that.) And do we have any canon that a verb (like {luSov}) can have a
sentence as an object without explicitly referring to it with {'e'}?

lojmIt tI'wI' nuv:
> Assuming that you allow the Klingon to be as vague as the English, a
> conjunction without {‘e’} is more compact than to include it.

The English was only vague because I elided the part that would've
been repeated in the translation.

The question I was asking is, how would you express "We kill
prisoners, but they don't know that we kill prisoners", or "The child
hit the officer and I see that [the child hit the officer]", and the
like?

I see two options: (1) using {'e'} by itself ({yaS qIp puq, 'ej 'e'
vIlegh}), and (2) repeating the sentence ({yaS qIp puq, 'ej yaS qIp
puq 'e' vIlegh}). Okay, there's a third option of using a noun: (3)
{yaS qIp puq, 'ej ghu' vIlegh} or something like that.

According to you, though, option (2) is out (because you'd interpret
it as { (yaS qIp puq 'ej yaS qIp puq} 'e' vIlegh} rather than {yaS qIp
puq 'ej (yaS qIp puq 'e' vIlegh)}). So I'm wondering how you would say
it? I guess your answer is something like option (3), but dropping the
{ghu'} (or {'e'} or whatever the object of the second sentence
would've been).

I'm not saying that option (1) is a model sentence or that it's pretty
or anything like that. All I'm saying is that I see nothing to exclude
it as a grammatical Klingon sentence with a sensible interpretation.

-- 
De'vID