tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Thu Feb 20 08:23:15 2003
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
Re: QongDaqDaq
From: "Steven Boozer" <[email protected]>
> >tlhIngan Hol vIjatlhlaHbe' 'ej 'e' tob SuStel!
>
> {'ej} is not used when using {'e'} to link clauses:
>
> tlhIngan Hol vIjatlhlaHbe' 'e' tob SuStel!
> Sustel proved that I can't speak Klingon.
>
> At least, we've never seen it used this way in the many examples we
> have. If you want, make it into two sentences:
>
> tlhIngan Hol vIjatlhlaHbe'. 'ej 'e' tob SuStel!
> I can't speak Klingon. And Sustel proved that!
While your first suggested sentence is correct, I disagree that the second
is a "solution" to the "problem." A Sentence As Object construction IS two
sentences -- the definition of a "sentence" is a little less than
straightforward. I don't see a problem with using /'ej/ before the second
verbal phrase of the construction, and I'd say the established rules STILL
apply (i.e., no, you can't put a /-pu'/ on that second verb).
> The short answer is that this is one of those rules that you have to
> accept. The longer answer is that {'e'} is not "just" a pronoun, but is
> also a type of conjunction when it forms a sentence-as-object (SAO).
/'e'/ is not a conjunction. Thinking of it this way might get you to create
some correct sentences, but it fails in some instances.
For example, from what we can gather, the correct way to say "I immediately
knew that the captain stole the ship" is
Duj nIH HoD SIbI 'e' vISov
Breaking that down, it is
Duj nIH HoD
The captain stole the ship.
SIbI 'e' vISov
I knew that immediately.
If /'e'/ were some kind of conjunction, I might create a sentence */Duj nIH
HoD 'e' SIbI' vISov/, but TKD is quite clear that /'e'/ is only used as the
object of a verb. (Interestingly, though, the one and only example we have
of an adverbial on the second verb of a Sentence As Object construction puts
the adverbial AFTER /'e'/.)
> Now Okrand writes in TKD that "In complex sentences of this type, the
> second verb never takes an aspect suffix" (p. 66). Now it's just possible
> - and this is just an idea I'm throwing out - that you can indeed say:
>
> 'e' tobpu' SuStel.
> Sustel has proven that.
>
> since this by itself is *not* a complex sentence, merely a simple sentence
> which is not part of a SAO construction. If so, {'e'} is just a pronoun
> here. So, you could either say
>
> tlhIngan Hol vIjatlhlaHbe' 'e' tob SuStel.
> Sustel proved that I can't speak Klingon.
>
> or
>
> tlhIngan Hol vIjatlhlaHbe'. 'ej 'e' tobpu' SuStel!
> I can't speak Klingon. And Sustel has proven that!
I disagree, for reasons stated above. Sticking a period doesn't make a new
sentence: how do you include a period when speaking?
> If this isn't kosher, try using {-bej} "definitely, undoubtedly,
certainly"
> to add the emphasis you're after:
>
> tlhIngan Hol vIjatlhlaHbe' 'e' tobbej SuStel.
> Sustel certainly proved that I can't speak Klingon.
He's not looking for emphasis, he's looking for completion. That's done
with an aspect suffix, but he can't make the distinction he wants to make.
If you want to say that I completed proving it, you'd have to say
tlhIngan Hol vIjatlhlaHbe'pu' 'e' tob SuStel
Think of it this way: it's all one sentence, and that's where the aspect of
the ENTIRE sentence must go.
SuStel
Stardate 3139.2