[tlhIngan Hol] the {nargh} the other {nargh} and the {-vo'}

De'vID de.vid.jonpin at gmail.com
Tue Nov 22 01:44:12 PST 2016

On 21 November 2016 at 19:23, SuStel <sustel at trimboli.name> wrote:
> On 11/21/2016 12:51 PM, mayqel qunenoS wrote:
>>> {mo'Dajvo' pa'wIjDaq je narghpu' He'So'bogh SajlIj}
>> I knew of using {-vo'} and {-Daq} at the beginning of a sentence, in
>> order to express the "from ---> to"; but somehow I had the idea that
>> the two nouns can't be joined by the {je}. If this sentence is correct
>> (is it ?) I will be happy to assimilate this knowledge.

The SkyBox cards have the following notice, so {je} can join nouns
marked with a type-5 suffix:
{Paramount Pictures malja' permey bIH Star Trek pong'e' Deghmey'e' je}

But note that the {je} here is joining two nouns with the same suffix.

> There's no rule against it. There's a theoretical reason not to do it, which
> is not demonstrated one way or another in canon so far as I know: it might
> make sense if you cannot stylistically join nouns of dissimilar syntactic
> roles.

Or maybe you can join certain pairs when it makes sense, like {-vo'}
and {-Daq}, and even then it's seen as a slight bending of the rules.
Most of the time, sticking a {je} on {Xvo' YDaq} would only change the
emphasis and not the meaning, "it went from A and to B" vs. "it went
from A to B".


More information about the tlhIngan-Hol mailing list