[101834] in tlhIngan-Hol
Re: [Tlhingan-hol] Piraha
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (SuStel)
Mon Nov 2 17:12:00 2015
To: tlhingan-hol@kli.org
From: SuStel <sustel@trimboli.name>
Date: Mon, 2 Nov 2015 17:10:29 -0500
In-Reply-To: <29067930-FB74-4060-ADC5-E47261906701@gmail.com>
Errors-To: tlhingan-hol-bounces@kli.org
On 11/2/2015 8:26 AM, Will Martin wrote:
> In this case, I think it=92s a matter of style and either way is
> acceptable. {=91IHbogh tlhIngan HoS} is my preferred construction, being
> more efficient, and placing both descriptors closer to the noun they
> describe. But I fully accept both HoSbogh tlhIngan =91ej =91IHbogh} or
> {HoSbogh =91IHbogh je tlhIngan}. In this case, the {je} is functioning as
> saying =93also=94 to the verb of the relative clause, rather than ending a
> list of nouns.
I don't think your last example is grammatical; its only precedent is =
from the line of a song, {yoHbogh matlhbogh je SuvwI'}, which we tend to =
believe is creative license rather than proper grammar.
Verbs are conjoined by {'ej}; nouns are conjoined by {je}; an adverbial =
{je} follows a verb that is positioned grammatically whether the {je} is =
there or not. I don't see how you can interpret {HoSbogh 'IHbogh je =
tlhIngan} grammatically.
> =93the Klingon who is strong and also powerful.=94 Your
> preference is more like =93The Klingon who is strong and who is powerful=
=94.
I see {HoSbogh tlhIngan 'IH} and {'IHbogh tlhIngan HoS} as emphasizing =
different things, while {HoSbogh tlhIngan 'ej 'IHbogh} means exactly the =
same thing as {'IHbogh tlhIngan 'ej HoSbogh}.
-- =
SuStel
http://www.trimboli.name/
_______________________________________________
Tlhingan-hol mailing list
Tlhingan-hol@kli.org
http://mail.kli.org/mailman/listinfo/tlhingan-hol
