[tlhIngan Hol] Clarifying the {'e'}

[SuStel]

On 12/4/2016 5:23 AM, mayqel qunenoS wrote:
> SuStel:
>
> > *qo'vam'e' yInvam'e' je jIH mubechmoH bIH*
> > /as for this world and life, they make me suffer/
>
> I began to ask myself: what's happening here ? we have nouns put at 
> the beginning of the sentence carrying the {'e'}, and as a result 
> obtaing the translation "as for the (noun)..". And as a result of this 
> translation, the rest of the sentence starts to revolve around 
> this/these nouns.
>
> So, if my understanding of this use of {'e'} is correct, I can write:
>
> SoSlI''e' vIghro'lIj HoHta'
> as for your mother, she killed your cat
>
> vIghro''e' bo'DeghDaj Sopta'
> as for the cat, it ate his bird
>
> SoH'e', verengan Ha'DIbaH SoH.
> as for you, you're a ferengi dog.
>
> So, I would like to ask:
>
> SuStel (or anyone else), are the above sentences correct ? is my 
> understanding of this use of {'e'} correct ?
>

Yes they are! I too felt a revelation when I realized how this worked.

We have a sole example—so far as I can remember—from /Star Trek V:/

*qIbDaq SuvwI''e' SoH Dun law' Hoch Dun puS
*/You would be the greatest warrior in the galaxy./

/The Klingon Dictionary/ also supports this understanding, in that when 
it discusses putting nouns before the main OVS structure. It says "such 
nouns usually end in a Type 5 noun suffix." It says "usually," not 
"always." What I've come to understand is that /any/ sort of non-object, 
non-subject noun can go there, provided its meaning is clear. *DaHjaj* 
can go there because you immediately understand that to be a time 
expression. /Noun/-*Daq* can go there because the suffix tells you it's 
putting the sentence in a location. Well, /noun-/*'e'* can go there 
because it's telling you the topic of the sentence.

Using /noun-/*'e'* at the front is not just intensifying an identical 
subject or object, though it can have that effect. It is identifying the 
topic of the sentence. It might not be directly equivalent to either 
position.

*pu'jIn pegh'e' maja'chuqnIS
*/as for the secret map, we need to talk
/(This is not literally "we need to talk about the secret map," so don't 
go crazy trying to turn *-'e'* into an "about" suffix. We've had much 
argument about this in the past.)

*cha'pujqut'e' ghorlu'pu'bogh waw' wISIchnIS QapHa'pa' QuQ
*/as for the broken dilithium crystal, we need to reach a base before 
the engine fails/

We often want to specify "the most what?" in a superlative sentence. We 
would usually say something like:

*puqwI' tlhIb law' Hoch yaS tlhIb puS
*/my child is the most competent officer
/

I'm starting to think we aren't doing this right. Okrand has, to my 
knowledge, never used a *Hoch */noun/ phrase in a comparative or 
superlative sentence. But he /has/ used that sentence from /ST5./ The 
*law'/puS* might not be flexible enough to use anything but a pure 
*Hoch* in the B slot for a superlative. This might in fact be the right 
way to do it:

*yaS'e' puqwI' tlhIb law' Hoch tlhIb puS
*/my child is the most competent officer/

-- 
SuStel
http://trimboli.name

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.kli.org/pipermail/tlhingan-hol-kli.org/attachments/20161204/3f0dfacf/attachment.htm>