tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Sat Sep 02 14:54:32 1995
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
Re: Re[2]: }} jIjot 'ej jIQuch
- From: "William H. Martin" <[email protected]>
- Subject: Re: Re[2]: }} jIjot 'ej jIQuch
- Date: Sat, 2 Sep 1995 14:54:32 -0400 (EDT)
According to Mark E. Shoulson:
>
...[snip]
> >BTW, what's the difference between 'e' & net?
>
> An easy way to think of them, and probably pretty close to correct:
>
> <whatever> 'e' X-lu' == <whatever> net X
>
> So "net" is just like "'e'" except it also means that the subject of the
> main clause is indefinite or "folks in general."
>
> ~mark
Also, recognize that the use of {net} is the closest thing
Klingon has to a "sentence as subject" construction. If {net}
didn't exist as the replacement for {'e' Xlu'}, then you could
translate the latter as passive voice, making the sentence
represented by {'e'} the subject of the passive verb. Example:
*tlhIngan tIch qoHna' neH 'e' Sovlu'.*
This could be translated as "It is known that only a true fool
insults a Klingon." The "it" in that sentence is the subject of
"is known", and it also is the English equivalent of the
Klingon pronoun {'e'] in that it represents "Only a true fool
insults a Klingon."
You could also translate this as "Only a true fool insults a
Klingon -- is known." Meanwhile, the whole construction is not
really legal because we are told that we should instead express
it as:
tlhIngan tIch qoHna' neH net Sov.
We are also told that this should be translated as:
"One knows that only a true fool insults a Klingon." Okrand
thereby sidestepped the problem of a natural move toward
sentence as subject. Neither the Klingon construction nor its
translation can be considered sentence as subject. Clever.
charghwI'
--
\___
o_/ \
<\__,\
"> | Get a grip.
` |