[613] in tlhIngan-Hol
QI'yaH
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU)
Tue Apr 20 18:18:32 1993
Errors-To: tlhIngan-Hol-request@village.boston.ma.us
Errors-To: tlhIngan-Hol-request@village.boston.ma.us
Errors-To: tlhIngan-Hol-request@village.boston.ma.us
Errors-To: tlhIngan-Hol-request@village.boston.ma.us
Errors-To: tlhIngan-Hol-request@village.boston.ma.us
Errors-To: tlhIngan-Hol-request@village.boston.ma.us
Errors-To: tlhIngan-Hol-request@village.boston.ma.us
Errors-To: tlhIngan-Hol-request@village.boston.ma.us
Reply-To: "Klingon Language List" <tlhIngan-Hol@village.boston.ma.us>
From: Captain Krankor <krankor@codex.prds.cdx.mot.com>
To: "Klingon Language List" <tlhIngan-Hol@village.boston.ma.us>
Date: Tue, 20 Apr 93 15:45:24 -0400
Letty:
jIHvaD jabbI'ID DangeHpu'law', 'ach not vIHevpu' naDev veQ 'oHmo'
labwI'qoq'e'. mungeHqa' Eli 'e' vItultaH.
'ach markvo' jangghach vIHevpu', vaj loQ jIjanglaH jIH.
DIpmojaQ 'oHbej "-mo'"'e', 'ach 175 DanuDchugh, wotmojaQ 'oH je 'e'
Daleghbej. lughbej mark ja'mo' wot DIp je 'oH "pong"'e'; mu'tlheghwIjDaq,
wot 'oHtaH.
--Qanqor
------------------------------------------------------------------------
A correction to the excerpt I saw: In a couple places, 'e' is being used
incorrectly, in fact, needlessly. 'e' is used to refer to a preceeding
sentence, and as such is the object of the verb. However, in a couple places
Letty stuck in an 'e' which apparently wants to refer to the preceeding noun
or noun phrase. A noun is not really a sentence, and is perfectly capable of
being the object of a verb all by itself. Thus:
wa' mu' vIleghbogh 'e' vIyajlaHbe'chu'
The 'e' is wrong here. wa' mu' vIleghbogh -- "one word that I see (saw)" --
is a noun phrase, not a whole sentence. Therefore it does not need an 'e'
to refer to it, it is just fine as the object of yaj. So it should be, simply:
wa' mu' vIleghbogh vIyajlaHbe'chu'.
Similarly:
"pong'eghbe'mo'" 'e' vIyajlaHbe'
does not want the 'e'. "pong'eghbe'mo'", with the quotes, is just a word,
and as such, a noun, quite content to be the object of yaj. The 'e' here
is unnecessary, and of dubious correctness.
On the other hand,
vaj "pong" nuq 'e' vISovbe'
is completely correct. "vaj "pong" nuq" -- "So what is "pong"?" is a sentence
all by itself (see FTGD, HolQeD 1.1). The 'e' here refers to that whole
sentence, which is as it should be.
The key, in general, to whether something is a whole sentence, is whether or
not it has a 'real' verb. By 'real', I mean: one not functioning in some
subordinate way. I'm sure there's a better linguistic term for this, but for
our purposes, it generally means a verb without a type 9 suffix (except for
-'a' and -jaj).
--Krankor
