[tlhIngan Hol] What exactly does the {'ej} connect ?

[André Müller]

That might have been the example, yes.

A relative clause is formed with {-bogh} in Klingon, so {paq vIlaDlI'bogh}
is the book that I am reading. So your sentence is an example of a noun
{Dargh} with two relativized verbs attached to it.

- André

2016-11-15 16:56 GMT+01:00 mayqel qunenoS <mihkoun at gmail.com>:

> andre muller:
> > nouns with relative clauses
>
> What is a "noun with relative clause" ? Could you write an example ?
>
> andre muller:
> > Note, that {'ej} can also connect 2 relative clauses:
> > (X-bogh 'ej Y-bogh Z = a Z which is X and Y), although I cannot find the
> example right now.
>
> Perhaps it is {SuDbogh Dargh 'ej wovbogh}, but I don't remember the
> source..
>
> qunnoH jan puqloD
>
> On Tue, Nov 15, 2016 at 4:42 PM, André Müller <esperantist at gmail.com>
> wrote:
> > I think that it's better to remember that {'ej} connects clauses, not
> just
> > sentences. The two parts ending in {-taHvIS} are not relative clauses,
> but
> > temporal clauses ("while..."), they could also be called converbs
> ("-ing").
> >
> > Linguistically speaking, it is the best to remember that {je} connects
> noun
> > phrases (so not just nouns, but also nouns with relative clauses, nouns
> with
> > adjectives, pronouns, etc.), and {'ej} connects everything else (though
> not
> > everything).
> >
> > We have to remember that MO didn't write TKD for a linguistic audience
> and
> > that he didn't always use extremely precise unambiguous terminology. So
> when
> > he says sentences in this case, he might actually mean clauses, or
> verbs, or
> > verbal phrases. Canon examples show when {'ej} is used.
> >
> > Note, that {'ej} can also connect 2 relative clauses: (X-bogh 'ej Y-bogh
> Z =
> > a Z which is X and Y), although I cannot find the example right now.
> >
> > - André
> >
> > 2016-11-15 13:51 GMT+01:00 mayqel qunenoS <mihkoun at gmail.com>:
> >>
> >> hmm.. I see..
> >>
> >> so, at the sentence {jIyIttaHvIS 'ej jISoptaHvIS, vIghro' vIgho'}, the
> >> {'ej} *does* connect two sentences:
> >>
> >> sentence one: {jIyIt}
> >> sentence two: {jISop}
> >>
> >> the {-taHvIS} just creates relative clauses out of these sentences.
> right
> >> ?
> >>
> >> qunnoH
> >> ghoghwIj HablI'vo' vIngeHta'
> >>
> >>
> >> On 15 Nov 2016 1:29 pm, "De'vID" <de.vid.jonpin at gmail.com> wrote:
> >>>
> >>> On 15 November 2016 at 12:18, mayqel qunenoS <mihkoun at gmail.com>
> wrote:
> >>> > De'vID;
> >>> >> Note the part that says {lengtaHvIS... 'ej charghtaSvIS}.
> >>> >
> >>> > maj. this answers my question, and shows that the {'ej} is indeed
> able
> >>> > to join two "parts of a sentence" (I don't know how else to call
> >>> > them).
> >>>
> >>> Subordinate clauses. See TKD 6.2.2.
> >>>
> >>> > and -correct me if I'm wrong-, according to this canon example we
> >>> > could write too: {qaleghmeH 'ej qa'uchmeH, jIlengta'} for "in order
> to
> >>> > see you and in order to hold you, I traveled". Also, we could write
> >>> > {qaleghDI' 'ej qa'uchDI' jIQuchchoH} for "as soon as I saw you and as
> >>> > soon as I held you, I became happy"
> >>>
> >>> Correct.
> >>>
> >>> > however, this does contradict the "strict description" of {'ej}, that
> >>> > "it is used to join sentences". Unless of course, what I've been
> >>> > calling "parts of a sentence" are considered to be true sentences..
> >>>
> >>> You're thinking about this the wrong way.
> >>>
> >>> {'ej} *is* joining two sentence: {loghDaq leng} and {qo'mey Sar
> chargh}.
> >>>
> >>> By applying {-taHvIS} to the verb of a sentence, it becomes a
> >>> subordinate clause. And what's the verb of the compound sentence
> >>> {loghDaq leng 'ej qo'mey Sar chargh}? It has two verbs: {leng} and
> >>> {chargh}.
> >>>
> >>> There's no contradiction here. There's an unstated (and I think pretty
> >>> intuitive) rule that if a sentence is compound, the verb suffixes
> >>> apply to all the relevant verbs.
> >>>
> >>> --
> >>> De'vID
> >>> _______________________________________________
> >>> tlhIngan-Hol mailing list
> >>> tlhIngan-Hol at lists.kli.org
> >>> http://lists.kli.org/listinfo.cgi/tlhingan-hol-kli.org
> >>
> >>
> >> _______________________________________________
> >> tlhIngan-Hol mailing list
> >> tlhIngan-Hol at lists.kli.org
> >> http://lists.kli.org/listinfo.cgi/tlhingan-hol-kli.org
> >>
> >
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > tlhIngan-Hol mailing list
> > tlhIngan-Hol at lists.kli.org
> > http://lists.kli.org/listinfo.cgi/tlhingan-hol-kli.org
> >
> _______________________________________________
> tlhIngan-Hol mailing list
> tlhIngan-Hol at lists.kli.org
> http://lists.kli.org/listinfo.cgi/tlhingan-hol-kli.org
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.kli.org/pipermail/tlhingan-hol-kli.org/attachments/20161115/3d6cc0c7/attachment-0017.htm>