tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Mon Jan 07 15:59:13 2002
[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.
charghwI':
>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!"?
pagh