tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Fri Jan 07 14:07:22 2011
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
RE: mu'tlheghvam yIlughmoH
ruben:
> ghobe'. «wej bomvam 'o'megh vISov», qar'a'
bIlugh.
Voragh:
> If it's "a distinction where there isn't one" then it's one Okrand makes too.
> When he analyzes an utterance word-by-word for beginners, he routinely
> breaks down SAOs into their two component sentences.
I believe what lojmIt tI'wI' nuv is getting at is that Okrand always appears to view SAO constructions as consisting of two sentences; he never views 'e' as a conjunction or anything like that, even though it looks like one when one translates it into a more natural-sounding English sentence.
To illustrate:
I sometimes use periods to part SAO constructions, and sometimes I don't.
quv tlhIngan. 'e' vISov.
I part this expression, because I feel that I can view it as two statements with which I agree.
quv verenganpu' 'e' vIHarbe'.
Here I don't part the expression, because I feel that if I break it down I can't get behind both statements; it feels like I'm speaking an untruth and then retracting it.
However, while this makes sense to me, I've never actually seen any indication that Hol chenmoHwI' makes this distinction; it would appear that Klingons don't think it's unnatural to say something they don't agree with, and then clarify that they only made that statement in order to use it as an object.
Personally, I think that nuq {'oH bomvam 'o'megh'e'. wej vISovbe'.} works.
"What is this song's ending? I don't know it yet."
What the object ("it") of the second sentence signifies is left up to context, and I don't think there can be much doubt that it's the song's 'o'megh.