tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Wed Jan 16 20:48:55 2002

Back to archive top level

To this year's listing

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

Re: Hech (was: Re: SajwIj)

ghItlh Sean Healy:

> >SENTENCE 'e' VERB is not analogous to
> >OBJECT VERB.  Actually the 'e' VERB part _is_ the entire
> >OBJECT VERB complex.  The pronoun {'e'} refers back
> >to the previous SENTENCE, which is basically completely
> >independent: {qagh vISop 'e' vIHech} is literally
> >"I eat qagh. This I intend/mean to do".  We punctuate
> >  the two phrases as one sentence, but that is not unheard of in Klingon: 
> >reported speech sentences using {jatlh} are also technically two separate 
> >sentences, althought punctuated as one.
> A good point.  But then {'e'} itself, as a pronoun, should be 
> interchangeable with any OBJECT. 

Right.  But the point I wanted to make is that only
nouns can be OBJECTS in this way.  A phrase including
a plain verb (one without Type 9 suffixes) can never
be an object of another verb without the referring
pronouns {'e'/net} in between (except for {neH}).

-- ter'eS

Back to archive top level