[110618] in tlhIngan-Hol
Re: [tlhIngan Hol] Proper use of adverbial {je}
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (mayqel qunenoS)
Tue Aug 15 10:26:10 2017
X-Original-To: tlhingan-hol@lists.kli.org
In-Reply-To: <CA+7zAmOishFWFnkqKkJLhaPxWRo69hsv_re-Y47THDu4_F+pjA@mail.gmail.com>
From: mayqel qunenoS <mihkoun@gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 15 Aug 2017 17:26:07 +0300
To: tlhingan-hol@kli.org
Reply-To: tlhingan-hol@kli.org
Errors-To: tlhingan-hol-bounces@lists.kli.org
--===============5175792256276385476==
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="94eb2c1afc86708d1f0556cb8ffb"
--94eb2c1afc86708d1f0556cb8ffb
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Skybox 2:
{lI'qu' tlhIngan may' taj. not Hub'eghrupHa' lo'wI'. taj DopmeyDaq
nargh cha' tajHom. ghop luQan tajHommey. pe'laH je.
De'vID:
But this can be explained by interpreting {pe'laH je} as "they also (in
addition to the main blade) cut", which does match
the English translation of "another set of cutting edges".
Very interesting comments. However, lets approach it from another angle.
As I understand the adverbial use of {je}, as it is described in tkd, and
as nIqolay Q explained, we need to have the same verb, repeated twice.
However, in the skybox example, we have a {je} which follows the verb
{pe'laH}, without having seen the verb {pe'} anywhere else in the preceding
sentences.
Even the knife, is being referred to as {may' taj}, and not {pe'meH taj}.
Granted, since the subject is a "battle knife", and not a "cutting knife",
one indeed expects to see {may' taj}. Regardless though, the fact remains,
that we do not have a {pe'} in the preceeding sentences, not even in the
form of a {-meH}ed noun.
I understand the possibility, that since the entirety of this sentence
concerns a knife, it would be possible for the {pe'laH je}, to actually
mean "they also (in addition to the main blade) cut".
But the important fact -according to my opinion-, is that regardless of the
english translation, we have an adverbial {je} used not on a single verb
which remains the same and is repeated twice, but on the second of two
different verbs.
So, the question now is:
If we saw only the klingon sentence, of Skybox 2, without seeing the
english translation, wouldn't it be sufficient evidence to allow us to use
the {je}, not only in cases where the verb remains the same ?
qunnoq
--94eb2c1afc86708d1f0556cb8ffb
Content-Type: text/html; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
<div dir=3D"auto"><div><div class=3D"gmail_extra"><div class=3D"gmail_quote=
"><blockquote class=3D"quote" style=3D"margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #c=
cc solid;padding-left:1ex"><div class=3D"quoted-text"></div></blockquote></=
div></div></div><div dir=3D"auto"><br></div><div dir=3D"auto">Skybox 2:</di=
v><div dir=3D"auto"><br></div><div dir=3D"auto"><div class=3D"gmail_extra">=
<div class=3D"gmail_quote"><blockquote class=3D"quote" style=3D"margin:0 0 =
0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">
{lI'qu' tlhIngan may' taj. not Hub'eghrupHa' lo'wI&=
#39;. taj DopmeyDaq<br>
nargh cha' tajHom. ghop luQan tajHommey. pe'laH je.<br></blockquote=
></div></div></div><div dir=3D"auto"><br></div><div dir=3D"auto"><div class=
=3D"gmail_extra"><div class=3D"gmail_quote"><blockquote class=3D"quote" sty=
le=3D"margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex"></bloc=
kquote></div></div></div><div dir=3D"auto">De'vID:</div><div dir=3D"aut=
o"><div class=3D"gmail_extra"><div class=3D"gmail_quote"><blockquote class=
=3D"quote" style=3D"margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-le=
ft:1ex">
<br>But this can be explained by interpreting {pe'laH je} as "they=
also (in addition to the main blade) cut", which does match<br>
the English translation of "another set of cutting edges".<br></b=
lockquote></div></div></div><div dir=3D"auto"><br></div><div dir=3D"auto">V=
ery interesting comments. However, lets approach it from another angle.</di=
v><div dir=3D"auto"><br></div><div dir=3D"auto">As I understand the adverbi=
al use of {je}, as it is described in tkd, and as nIqolay Q explained, we n=
eed to have the same verb, repeated twice.</div><div dir=3D"auto"><br></div=
><div dir=3D"auto">However, in the skybox example, we have a {je} which fol=
lows the verb {pe'laH}, without having seen the verb {pe'} anywhere=
else in the preceding sentences.=C2=A0</div><div dir=3D"auto"><br></div><d=
iv dir=3D"auto">Even the knife, is being referred to as {may' taj}, and=
not {pe'meH taj}. Granted, since the subject is a "battle knife&q=
uot;, and not a "cutting knife", one indeed expects to see {may&#=
39; taj}. Regardless though, the fact remains, that we do not have a {pe=
9;} in the preceeding sentences, not even in the form of a {-meH}ed noun.</=
div><div dir=3D"auto"><br></div><div dir=3D"auto">I understand the possibil=
ity, that since the entirety of this sentence concerns a knife, it would be=
possible for the {pe'laH je}, to actually mean "<span style=3D"fo=
nt-family:sans-serif">they also (in addition to the main blade) cut".<=
/span></div><div dir=3D"auto"><span style=3D"font-family:sans-serif"><br></=
span></div><div dir=3D"auto"><span style=3D"font-family:sans-serif">But the=
important fact -according to my opinion-, is that regardless of the englis=
h translation, we have an adverbial {je} used not on a single verb which re=
mains the same and is repeated twice, but on the second of two different ve=
rbs.</span></div><div dir=3D"auto"><span style=3D"font-family:sans-serif"><=
br></span></div><div dir=3D"auto"><font face=3D"sans-serif">So, the questio=
n now is:</font></div><div dir=3D"auto"><font face=3D"sans-serif"><br></fon=
t></div><div dir=3D"auto"><font face=3D"sans-serif">If we saw only the klin=
gon sentence, of Skybox 2, without seeing the english translation, wouldn&#=
39;t it be sufficient evidence to allow us to use the {je}, not only in cas=
es where the verb remains the same ?</font></div><div dir=3D"auto"><font fa=
ce=3D"sans-serif"><br></font></div><div dir=3D"auto"><font face=3D"sans-ser=
if">qunnoq</font></div><div dir=3D"auto"><div class=3D"gmail_extra"><div cl=
ass=3D"gmail_quote"><blockquote class=3D"quote" style=3D"margin:0 0 0 .8ex;=
border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex"></blockquote></div></div></div=
></div>
--94eb2c1afc86708d1f0556cb8ffb--
--===============5175792256276385476==
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Disposition: inline
_______________________________________________
tlhIngan-Hol mailing list
tlhIngan-Hol@lists.kli.org
http://lists.kli.org/listinfo.cgi/tlhingan-hol-kli.org
--===============5175792256276385476==--
