Re: Topic or emphasis?

["David Trimboli" <SuStel@email.msn.com>]

jIjatlhHa':
> > yaS'e' qIpbogh puq vIlegh
> > I see the officer who hit the child.
>
> Umm..no. 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
might
> > consider {yaS} to be the topic of the CLAUSE, not the whole sentence.
"The
> > 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
officer:
> > a child hit him."  It then goes into the main sentence as usual: "I saw
the
> > 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.


SuStel
Stardate 99956.2