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

[mayql qunenoS]

ghItlhpu' Qov :

> jeghbe’wI’ ghaHmo’ wotvaD mojaq <-lI’>.

jeghbe'wI' = one who does not surrender
ghaHmo' = because he/him
wotvaD = for verb
mojaq {-lI'} = suffix {-lI'}

<the suffix {-lI'} for the verb because he/him is one who does not surrender> ?

what is this sentence supposed to mean ? I can't figure out, how it is
to be translated in english.

qunnoq

On Wed, Jan 6, 2016 at 6:01 AM, lojmIt tI'wI' nuv
<lojmitti7wi7nuv at gmail.com> wrote:
> 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
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Tlhingan-hol mailing list
> Tlhingan-hol at kli.org
> http://mail.kli.org/mailman/listinfo/tlhingan-hol
>