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

[lojmIt tI'wI' nuv]

Heghpu' Sargh DaqIptaHbogh. 

Sent from my iPod

> On Jan 5, 2016, at 8:44 PM, <qov at kli.org> <qov at kli.org> wrote:
> 
> 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
>  
>  
>  
> _______________________________________________
> Tlhingan-hol mailing list
> Tlhingan-hol at kli.org
> http://mail.kli.org/mailman/listinfo/tlhingan-hol
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mail.kli.org/pipermail/tlhingan-hol/attachments/20160105/fe4c9959/attachment.html>