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

[qov at kli.org]

jIghItlhtaHvIS loDnalwI'vaD jIjatlhtaHmo', bong mu' <vIlo'>, <vIwIv> ghap  vInop.  qamISmoH 'e' vIpay.

jeghbe'wI' ghaHmo' wotwIjvaD mojaq <-lI'> vIwIv.

DaH yajlu''a'?

bIghelmo' jIQuch. 

qen jabbI'IDmeyvam vIlaDbe'mo', puQ lojmIt tI'wI' nuv 'e' vISovbe'. vaj vIyu'DI' vInuQlaw'. jabbI'IDwIj DaqeHbe'mo' SoH, lI'Ha'be'.

- 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
> >
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Tlhingan-hol mailing list
> Tlhingan-hol at kli.org
> http://mail.kli.org/mailman/listinfo/tlhingan-hol