tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Thu Oct 18 09:49:46 2001
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
(no longer KLBC) 'ej/je (was: Re: KLBC: Limmerick vIqonta')
> > > yoHbogh matlhbogh je SuvwI' / Say'moHchu' may' 'Iw.
> > > (from /Qoy qeylIS puqloD/, also known as /SuvwI' van bom/)
> > >
> > > The line SHOULD read /yoHbogh SuvwI' 'ej matlhbogh Say'moHchu' may'
> 'Iw/
> > > ("The blood of battle washes clean the warrior brave and true").
> You
> > can't
> > > join two verbs with /je/. But this doesn't fit in with the song's
> meter.
> >
> > Where are the two verbs being joined by je?
> > [yoHbogh SuvwI'] is not a verb.
>
> /yoHbogh/ and /matlhbogh/ are verbs. The song ungrammatically joins
> them
> with /je/.
>
> > I agree that the line is not correct, but it would not be what you
> wrote
> > either.
>
> It certainly would be. To say "brave and loyal warrior," you'd say
> /yoHbogh
> SuvwI' 'ej matlhbogh/. Verbs, as well as sentences, can be conjoined
> by
> /'ej/, /qoj/, and /pagh/. There have been multiple examples of this
> sort of
> thing. For instance, /SuDbogh Dargh 'ej wovbogh/ "tea that is /SuD/
> and
> light." (KGT p. 82)
>
> Other grammatically valid ways of saying "brave and loyal warrior" are
>
> yoHbogh SuvwI' matlh
>
> matlhbogh SuvwI' yoH
>
> yoHbogh 'ej matlhbogh SuvwI'
> (However, TKD pp. 61-62 says that when you join two sentences that use
> the
> same noun, the SECOND of the two nouns may be made into a pronoun or,
> if
> context is clear, that pronoun may be dropped -- and that's why Okrand
> uses
> /SuDbogh Dargh 'ej wovbogh/ instead of /SuDbogh 'ej wovbogh Dargh/ and
> the
> like. This way of saying "brave and loyal warrior" is not
> grammatically
> incorrect, but the usage is inconsistent with many examples.)
>
> SuStel
> Stardate 1796.6
Then KGT and TKD conflict.
TKD p61 "Two sentences may be joined together to form a longer compound
sentence. Both sentences must be able to stand alone as properly formed
sentences."
yoHbogh SuvwI' is not a proper sentence. Under relatives clauses, TKD
p64, "The whole construction (relative clause plus head noun), as a unit, is
used in a sentence as a noun."
In the sentence that we are working with, what is the verb? Say' is the verb.
may' 'Iw is the subject. The object is not 'e', the object is not a previous
sentence. If you're connecting yoHbogh and matlhbogh with 'ej as tho they are
sentences... but wait, if they are sentences how can they be the object of
Say'? In defining je and 'ej TKD uses the terms "nouns" and "sentences". The
only mention of "verb" is p55 "The noun conjuction je has an additional
function: when it follows a verb, it means /also, too/."
So yoHbogh matlhbogh je means "which is brave, which is loyal also".
Sure, the SuvwI' should probably have followed the first verb.
What MO wrote in KGT were fragment sentences. I wonder if he had used them in
full sentences if he would have seen the conflict.
KGT p82, "To describe yellow tes, one must say SuD Dargh 'ej wov (The tea is
SuD and light) or SuDbogh Dargh 'ej wovbogh (The tea that is SuD and light)."
The first example is fine, it contains complete sentences; SuD Dargh is a
complete sentence, wov is a complete sentence. MO took those same first
sentences, maintained the layout, and added -bogh in there; but adding -bogh
changes them from sentences to relative clauses. Was that one word 'ej the
slip, or are those whole paragraphs from TKD wrong? Has anyone asked MO about
this specific example and its conflict?
DloraH