[110621] in tlhIngan-Hol
Re: [tlhIngan Hol] Proper use of adverbial {je}
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (SuStel)
Tue Aug 15 10:57:11 2017
X-Original-To: tlhingan-hol@lists.kli.org
To: tlhingan-hol@lists.kli.org
From: SuStel <sustel@trimboli.name>
Date: Tue, 15 Aug 2017 10:56:38 -0400
In-Reply-To: <CA+7zAmOcNiQm_iEW8=+E1V85=2dJ6qR62OzFxgSx-n_fEpi6AA@mail.gmail.com>
Reply-To: tlhingan-hol@kli.org
Errors-To: tlhingan-hol-bounces@lists.kli.org
This is a multi-part message in MIME format.
--===============0979906184241384669==
Content-Type: multipart/alternative;
boundary="------------313B8139E48C3D16C12330CA"
Content-Language: en-US
This is a multi-part message in MIME format.
--------------313B8139E48C3D16C12330CA
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
On 8/15/2017 10:32 AM, De'vID wrote:
> On 15 August 2017 at 16:26, mayqel qunenoS<mihkoun@gmail.com> wrote:
>> 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.
> nuqjatlh? Where does it say the same verb has to be repeated twice?
>
> The example in TKD is {qaleghpu' je}. There's no repetition of {legh}.
There is an implied repetition. You don't use *je* on a verb without
context (which TKD mentions explicitly for once). Inherent in the idea
of *je* is the notion that there is some other thing that was previously
said to which the *je* is referring.
*je* used with verbs REMAINS A NOUN CONJUNCTION. You are conjoining the
nouns present in either the object positions of the verbs or the subject
positions of the verbs./I AND others saw you/ or /I saw you AND others./
Let's suppose a full context like so:
*latlh vIleghpu'; SoH qaleghpu' je
*/I saw others; I also saw you = I saw you and others/
This is equivalent to:
*latlh SoH je Saleghpu'
*/I saw you and others/
The other interpretation of *qaleghpu' je* goes like this:
*SoH nIleghpu' latlh; SoH qaleghpu' jIH je
*/others saw you; I saw you too = I and others saw you/
*SoH pIleghpu' latlh jIH je
*/I and others saw you/
So to reiterate: *je* is a NOUN CONJUNCTION being placed after a verb to
conjoin one of the nouns of that verb with the equivalently positioned
noun in another verb.
Now, TKD doesn't explicitly say that the verbs have to be identical, but
that's a pretty safe bet considering what it means. But then we get the
SkyBox card with
*ghop luQan tajHommey. pe'laH je.*
What nouns are being conjoined here? None that I can see; the subject
*tajHommey* seems to be carried over to the next verb: *pe'laH je */they
//[the small blades] can also cut./ Here, *je* is functioning
identically to the sentence conjunction *'ej:* *ghop luQan tajHommey 'ej
pe'laH*/the small blades protect the hand and they can cut./
It is my opinion that this sentence is in error due to the casual way in
which we English speakers toss around the word /also. /Okrand was
thinking, *je* = /also,/ even though the /also/ he was thinking of was
the *'ej* variety. Doubtless he could come up with some justification
for this text, but so far he hasn't, and it appears to be a simple error.
--
SuStel
http://trimboli.name
--------------313B8139E48C3D16C12330CA
Content-Type: text/html; charset=utf-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
<html>
<head>
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=utf-8">
</head>
<body text="#000000" bgcolor="#FFFFFF">
<div class="moz-cite-prefix">On 8/15/2017 10:32 AM, De'vID wrote:<br>
</div>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:CA+7zAmOcNiQm_iEW8=+E1V85=2dJ6qR62OzFxgSx-n_fEpi6AA@mail.gmail.com">
<pre wrap="">On 15 August 2017 at 16:26, mayqel qunenoS <a class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E" href="mailto:mihkoun@gmail.com" moz-do-not-send="true"><mihkoun@gmail.com></a> wrote:
</pre>
<blockquote type="cite" style="color: #000000;">
<pre wrap="">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.
</pre>
</blockquote>
<pre wrap="">nuqjatlh? Where does it say the same verb has to be repeated twice?
The example in TKD is {qaleghpu' je}. There's no repetition of {legh}.</pre>
</blockquote>
<p>There is an implied repetition. You don't use <b>je</b> on a
verb without context (which TKD mentions explicitly for once).
Inherent in the idea of <b>je</b> is the notion that there is
some other thing that was previously said to which the <b>je</b>
is referring.</p>
<p><b>je</b> used with verbs REMAINS A NOUN CONJUNCTION. You are
conjoining the nouns present in either the object positions of the
verbs or the subject positions of the verbs.<i> I AND others saw
you</i> or <i>I saw you AND others.</i> Let's suppose a full
context like so:</p>
<blockquote>
<p><b>latlh vIleghpu'; SoH qaleghpu' je<br>
</b><i>I saw others; I also saw you = I saw you and others</i></p>
</blockquote>
<p>This is equivalent to:</p>
<blockquote>
<p><b>latlh SoH je Saleghpu'<br>
</b><i>I saw you and others</i></p>
</blockquote>
<p>The other interpretation of <b>qaleghpu' je</b> goes like this:</p>
<blockquote>
<p><b>SoH nIleghpu' latlh; SoH qaleghpu' jIH je<br>
</b><i>others saw you; I saw you too = I and others saw you</i></p>
<p><b>SoH pIleghpu' latlh jIH je<br>
</b><i>I and others saw you</i></p>
</blockquote>
<p>So to reiterate: <b>je</b> is a NOUN CONJUNCTION being placed
after a verb to conjoin one of the nouns of that verb with the
equivalently positioned noun in another verb.</p>
<p>Now, TKD doesn't explicitly say that the verbs have to be
identical, but that's a pretty safe bet considering what it means.
But then we get the SkyBox card with</p>
<blockquote>
<p><b>ghop luQan tajHommey. pe'laH je.</b></p>
</blockquote>
<p>What nouns are being conjoined here? None that I can see; the
subject <b>tajHommey</b> seems to be carried over to the next
verb: <b>pe'laH je </b><i>they </i><i>[the small blades] can
also cut.</i> Here, <b>je</b> is functioning identically to the
sentence conjunction <b>'ej:</b> <b>ghop luQan tajHommey 'ej
pe'laH</b><i> the small blades protect the hand and they can
cut.</i></p>
<p>It is my opinion that this sentence is in error due to the casual
way in which we English speakers toss around the word <i>also. </i>Okrand
was thinking, <b>je</b> = <i>also,</i> even though the <i>also</i>
he was thinking of was the <b>'ej</b> variety. Doubtless he could
come up with some justification for this text, but so far he
hasn't, and it appears to be a simple error.<br>
</p>
<pre class="moz-signature" cols="72">--
SuStel
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="http://trimboli.name">http://trimboli.name</a></pre>
</body>
</html>
--------------313B8139E48C3D16C12330CA--
--===============0979906184241384669==
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
--===============0979906184241384669==--
