tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Mon Feb 07 12:43:57 2000
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
RE: (KLBC) 'e' as a subject
- From: "Andeen, Eric" <[email protected]>
- Subject: RE: (KLBC) 'e' as a subject
- Date: Mon, 7 Feb 2000 13:38:20 -0700
jatlh ghaHbe'wI':
> Although in the canon I know I don't have any exemple of the use of
> {'e'} as substitute of a previous sentence (that is, as object), I
> have seen it a lot of times. Just two exemples from {Qo'noS QonoS 1}:
> 'angghal says:
> {wej Dochmey yIyajnIS neH: DIpmey wotmey chuvmey je.
> 'e' yIqaw 'ej tugh bIpo'choH}
>
> here we can see {'e'} replacing {DIpmey wotmey
> chuvmey je}.
Actually, the <'e'> is replacing the whole previous sentence, not just
<DIpmey wotmey chuvmey je>.
> and HoD Qanqor says:
> {taH'a' malja' wej 'e' vISovchu' 'ach 'e' vIpIH}
>
> first {'e'} substitutes {taH'a' malja'} and later
> it means {taHjaj malja'}.
> My question is: can an {'e'} takes the place of the subject,
> when it is elsewhere explicited? In TKD page 65 Okrand says
> "('e' and net) are always treated as the object of the verb,
> and the verb always takes a prefix indicating a third-person
> singular object".
> It's clear, but let's imagine a sentence like:
> {tlhon Say'moH Humanpu', tIghchaj 'oH 'e'}
> "Humans clean their nostrils, that's their custom"
> Is it right?
Nope. Okrand says that <'e' and net> are always treated as the *object* of
the verb, and we have no more recent indication that this is incorrect. If
you feel you need to use <'e'> as a subject, you need to rethink the
sentence. For yours, I would probably say:
tlhonchaj Say'moH Humanpu'. tIghchaj 'oH.
pagh
Beginners' Grammarian
tlhIngan Hol Mailing List FAQ
http://www.bigfoot.com/~dspeers/klingon/faq.htm