[Tlhingan-hol] {'ej 'e'}

[Felix Malmenbeck]

If I'm understanding the issue correctly, paq'batlh includes such uses. Granted, the text of paq'batlh includes quite a few apparent errors and is believed to have been a bit rushed, but it does give us some inkling of MO's intentions.


I don't have the English translations handy, but:


paq'raD, Canto 16, Stanza 9:


SoHvaD quvwI' qem Hegh 'e' wIvDI' Hegh

pop Hevchugh quvwI'

'ej 'e' DaqaSmoHchugh jIlaj


[Here, Kahless is naming terms to Kotar, saying that he will come with him if, when death brings him the honored dead, he will make sure that they are rewarded. Furthermore, 'e' also appears to be referring to something marked with -chugh, which is rather interesting.


paq'raD, Canto 21, Stanza 1:


mInDu'wIj tIbuS molor

vay' qalay'ta'

'ej batlh 'e' vIpab


[This one is more straightforward: The statement is that Kahless has made a promise, and that he will follow it.]


________________________________
From: Will Martin <lojmitti7wi7nuv at gmail.com>
Sent: Tuesday, January 5, 2016 17:48
To: tlhIngan Hol mailing list
Subject: [Tlhingan-hol] {'ej 'e'}

So far, I count one experienced Klingon speaker (me) who thinks that {'e'} should not refer to an earlier part of the compound sentence in which it is contained, and I count at least three who think I'm wrong in this opinion and foolish for being stubborn about it.

Given the silence of support from any corner of the community, I concede the point. Do whatever you like with this. I will not comment on it further.

If someone actually bothers Okrand to address the point directly so that we have an actual confirmation or denial of it, I think we'd all be a bit better off than we are now, regardless of how we choose to resolve our interpretations of the grammar.

pItlh
lojmIt tI'wI'nuv



-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mail.kli.org/pipermail/tlhingan-hol/attachments/20160105/50e8014b/attachment.html>