tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Tue Feb 08 16:44:13 2000
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
Re: (KLBC) 'e' as a subject
ja' ghaHbe'wI':
>and HoD Qanqor says:
>{taH'a' malja' wej 'e' vISovchu' 'ach 'e' vIpIH}
>first {'e'} substitutes {taH'a' malja'}...
HoD Qanqor sees nothing wrong with using a question as the object of
a sentence. He maintains that the "real" object is obvious, and has
no qualms about its status as valid Klingon grammar. Many others do
not share his assessment, and prefer to avoid such constructions. I
think in this particular sentence, {taH malja' wej 'e' vISovchu'} is
a much less controversial way to express the same idea.
>... and later it means {taHjaj malja'}.
Here, he has extended his "what I mean is obvious" argument further,
with the second {'e'} standing for something that never actually got
stated. He wants you to understand the last part of the sentence as
saying {...taH malja' 'e' vIpIH.} [It all comes together much more
coherently (in my opinion) if the {-'a'} isn't put on {taH} to begin
with.]
However, in no case is he trying to use {'e'} as a subject. {'e'} is
always an object. We know that explicitly.
-- ghunchu'wI' 'utlh