tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Mon Jan 07 15:59:13 2002

Back to archive top level

To this year's listing

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]

RE: continue

jalthpu' SuStel:
> jISoptaH 'e' vImev.  jIjatlh: jISopbe' qatlh DaneH?**
> jang jupwI'; jatlh: bIpI'choHtaH.
> **There is evidence that this should be /qatlh jISopbe' DaneH/.  In 
> Star Trek V Captain Klaa says /reH DIvI' Duj vISuv vIneH/ for "I've 
> always wanted to fight a Federation ship" (or something close to 
> that).  Notice how it appears to say "I want to always fight a 
> Federation ship," a very different concept.  Whereas in the standard 
> Sentence as Object construction, /'e'/ is the object (standing in for 
> the previous sentence), Klaa's sentence might be interpreted as using 
> the previous sentence itself as the object, which puts the adverbial 
> /reH/ before it.  This is all just speculation, however.


>I remember seeing this and wincing and then realizing that it actually DID make 
>sense the other way. While the meaning is different, the effect is the same, if 
>you get rid of the perfective, which is absent from the Klingon. If I always 
>want to fight a Fed ship, then I want to always fight a Fed ship.

>Meanwhile, I'm pretty sure that our persistent placement of adverbs before 
>{'e'} in SAO constructions when the adverb is to be applied to the second verb 
>has no actual support in canon. I've consistently looked for it and I've never 
>seen an example of <sentence - adverb - 'e' - sentence>. The very few examples 
>we've seen have all been <adverb - sentence - 'e' - sentence>.

There's also an example of <sentence - 'e' - adverbial - sentence>. It's the skybox card about the Duras sisters: <DuraS tuq tlhIngan yejquv patlh luDub 'e' reH lunIDtaH DuraS be'nI'pu' lurSa' be'etor je. ...>

>Meanwhile, if you read the grammar section in TKD on SAO, it sure sounds like 
>the adverb ought to go immediately before the {'e'}, since the two sentences 
>joined by 'e' are supposed to be grammatically independent of each other. It 
>would be strange indeed for the adverb to become so remote from the verb to 
>which it is applied. It doesn't make sense according the the grammar described 
>to us.

>This is one of those areas of the grammar I feel a bit bad about and I'd feel a 
>lot better if Okrand either used it the way we do, or if he explained to us 
>more explicitly why we are supposed to use it the way he has used it, giving us 
>methods, for example, for using different adverbs for each of the two verbs. In 
>other words, how would we say, "I alone insist that you to leave immediately!"?


Back to archive top level