tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Wed Dec 15 21:52:09 1999

Back to archive top level

To this year's listing

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

Re: Topic or emphasis?

> > yaS'e' qIpbogh puq vIlegh
> > I see the officer who hit the child.
> The DIvI' Hol translation should read:
> "I see the officer whom the child hit." -OR-
> "I see the officer who was hit by the child."

Quite right.  My boo-boo.  But the point stands.

> > As we know from conjunctions, adverbials, and so on, TKD frequently
fails to
> > distinguish between "verbal clause" and "sentence."  (For instance,
> > "sentence" conjunctions can conjoin phrases with verbs possessing
> > subordinate clause suffixes.)  Perhaps with {-'e'} disambiguation, one
> > consider {yaS} to be the topic of the CLAUSE, not the whole sentence.
> > officer.  We're talkin' 'bout the officer.  What about the officer?  You
> > ready to hear about the officer?  Here's what I'm sayin' 'bout the
> > a child hit him."  It then goes into the main sentence as usual: "I saw
> > officer."
> By that logic I can read the sentence thusly:
> yaS'e' qImbogh puq vIlegh.
> "As for the officer, I see the child who hit him/her [the officer]."

Now it's your boo-boo!  :)  {qIpbogh}, not {qImbogh}.

And no, as I said, it would be the topic of the clause, not the entire
sentence.  Anyway, it's just an idea.  I'm not saying it must be so.

> It's not a bad theory, and it can clear up a few things. But it doesn't
> jive with current usage (at least, not htat *I* can tell).

Current usage?  You mean KLI members' usage?  This mailing list's usage?  Or
known Klingon usage?  That's important.

Stardate 99956.2

Back to archive top level