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

[qov at kli.org]

lojmIt tI’wI’ nuv, this is interesting. How are you on the naked {‘e’ vISov}.  Let’s give it two different contexts, to see if they make a difference. 

 

1.

Qanqor: Sorvetlh ‘emDaq jagh tu’lu’.

Qov: ‘e’ vISov.

 

2. 

Qanqor: Qov, ngoD potlh DaSovnISchoH. [draws disruptor, the <Sang> setting already selected, and destroys the tree, revealing the heretofore concealed enemy]

Qov: ‘e’ vISov.

 

That is do you accept ‘e’ when the antecedent is uttered by another speaker, and do you accept it when the antecedent is implied?

 

To me the relationship between:

 

lojmIt tI’law’lI’ loDnalwI’ ‘ach lojmIt tI’lI’ loDnalwI’  ‘e’ vIQoybe’.

and

lojmIt tI’law’lI’ loDnalwI’ ‘ach ‘e’ vIQoybe’.

 

is just the same as the one between:

 

lojmIt tI’lI’ loDnalwI’ ‘ach loDnalwI’ vIQoybe’.

and

lojmIt tI’lI’ loDnalwI’ ‘ach ghaH vIQoybe’.

 

DaH lojmItmaj tI’bejlI’ loDnalwI’ ‘ej vIQoylaH. Do’Ha’ tI’meH ‘ay’ muj je’pu’mo’, Qapla’ chavbe’. jeghbe’wI’ ghaHmo’ wotvaD mojaq <-lI’>.

ghaHvaD jabbI’IDvam vImughDI’ jang ghaH. jatlh, jItlhetlhbej. muj ‘ay’vam ‘e’ vI’ol.

 

SKI: The examples in this discussion are drawn from a true event in progress, and are followed by more details on the event.  

 

  - Qov ‘utlh

--

Online Klingon Course free to all KLI members: http://www.kli.org/members-only/klcp-prep/



 

 





 

From: Will Martin [mailto:lojmitti7wi7nuv at gmail.com] 
Sent: January 5, 2016 8:49
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/20160105/0cd30860/attachment.html>