Re: John and I go...

[Andrew Strader <strader@decode.is>]

SuStel wrote:
>There is no evidence that you can say */majaH torgh/ (let's use a Klingon
>name).  The correct way of saying it is /majaH jIH torgh je/.  I believe
>we've had an example (I can't cite it) with "pronoun noun je" as subject.

Can't cite it? Tsk tsk. My own search yielded only one instance of a pronoun 
plus noun conjoined: "woQ luSuqmeH jIjpu' chaH romuluSngan'e' je", but the 
chaH is added for clarity (i.e. it is pragmatically necessary), so this is 
not conclusive for our purpose here. I'm interested in this problem, but I 
don't have the answer. Nonetheless I think it is premature to say that 
??majaH torgh?? is out-and-out wrong. I reread TKD 4.1 and 5.1 last night and 
could not find anything specifically wrong with it, except maybe that it is a 
violation of my English-centric sensibility. Does that count?? {{:-) What 
does everybody else think?

>wouldn't be opposed to /majaH Hoch maH/, because /Hoch maH/ is (apparently)
>a plural 1st person phrase.

Really?!! I would really like to know if THIS is canonical. I haven't been 
able to find any instances of ??Hoch maH??, and my searches for any other 
possible indications of how tlhIngan Hol might express pronominal 
quantification (like ??'op tlhIH??) have been unfruitful. I could 
not accept "Hoch maH" without canonical support; it just seems too arbitrary 
and too probably an Anglicism.