[2691] in tlhIngan-Hol
Re: {-ghach}
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU)
Fri Jan 21 10:20:12 1994
Reply-To: "Klingon Language List" <tlhIngan-Hol@klingon.East.Sun.COM>
From: Mark Reed <Mark.Reed@cad.gatech.edu>
To: "Klingon Language List" <tlhIngan-Hol@klingon.East.Sun.COM>
Date: Fri, 21 Jan 1994 10:16:25 -0500 (EST)
In-Reply-To: <9401211449.AA03198@kla.com> from "Matt Gomes" at Jan 21, 94 06:51
:04 am
\Sometime in the past veDHor'ayn said:
\
\> P.S.: consider the subsentance "qama' qIppu'bogh yaS". Does it say "the
\> officer who hit the prisoner" or "the prisoner whom was his by the
\> officer"?
\
\Forgive my ignorance, but... Don't these two say the same thing? The
\officer was swinging, the prisoner was being bruised... What's the
\difference between these two sentances besides word order?
They're not sentences, they're clauses. Put them in a complete sentence
and you can see the difficulty:
qama' qIppu'bogh yaS vIlegh I see the officer who hit the prisoner
or
I see the prisoner whom the officer hit
These are very different. Imagine that the hitting took place in the past,
and at the time in question you only see one of the two participants. How can
you tell which one? This is the amiguity that makes the use of the -'e'
[topic] suffix necessary:
qama' qIppu'bogh yaS'e' vIlegh I see the officer who hit the prisoner
qama''e' qIppu'bogh yaS'e' vIlegh I see the prisoner whom the officer hit
(Either of these is different from "I saw the officer hit the prisoner",
which would be
qama' qIppu' yaS 'e' vIleghpu'
Note that this sentence (technically a pair of sentences) is using the pronoun
'e', not the suffix -'e'.)
-marqoS
