tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Sun Jan 12 19:15:35 1997

Back to archive top level

To this year's listing



[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]

Re: <'e'> lo'



SuSvaj wrote (quoting Voragh quoting Azetbur):

|> 	'e' neHbe' vavoy.
|> 	That wasn't what my father wanted.
|This is an interesting example. That is definitely what Azetbur said,
|however, according to TKD, its illegal. At the bottom of page 66 we read
|"When the verb of the second sentence is *neH*, neither 'e', or net is
|used." It seems that we have a conflict of canon here.

I don't think so, at least not in the above example. To quote TKD more
fully on sentence-as-object constructions (S1 'e' S2):

"When the verb of the second sentence is neH *want*, neither 'e', nor net
is used, but the construction is otherwise identical to that just
described."

According to the Okrand's examples, you therefore say:
   jIQong vIneH *not* jIQong 'e' vIneH (I want to sleep.)
   qalegh vIneH *not* qalegh 'e' vIneH (I want to see you.)
   Dalegh vIneH	*not* Dalegh 'e' vIneH (I want you to see him/her.)

In {'e' vIneHbe'}, 'e' is being used as a pronoun to replace S1 *entirely*. 
Since this is only one sentence, not two linked together, I don't think the
prohibition on neH applies as it would if Azetbur had said, say, "DIHIv
vIneHbe' vavoy".

This use of 'e' may be just be a feature of colloquial Klingon and ain't
really part of the formal style. {{;-) All other attestations do, in fact,
use it in the more familiar S1 'e' S2 construction. 

Voragh




Back to archive top level