[tlhIngan Hol] Two {-'e'}'s in a pronoun sentence.

[nIqolay Q]

On Tue, Sep 12, 2017 at 12:26 PM, mayqel qunenoS <mihkoun at gmail.com> wrote:

> I agree 100% with the analysis provided by lieven.
>
> So, if I understand correctly:
>
> Yes, we can have the construction {b'e' 'oH a'e'}.
> Yes, we can have the construction {yadda yadda yadda b'e' 'oHbogh 'a'e'}.
>
> If I understand wrong, then do correct me.
>

How did you get that understanding from the examples people have posted? No
one else here has used a sentence with two {-'e'} suffixes; most of the
discussion has been about word order and finding clearer ways to rephrase
your sentences. The {-'e'} suffix is a topic marker. It has the same
meaning in the {X 'oH Y'e'} construction as it does in any other sentence.
It describes the topic of the sentence, what the focus of the sentence is
on, and a sentence (or at least a well-written one) can't have two
focuses.*

In your examples, {nepwI''e' chaH verengan'e'} and {nutojta' nepwI''e'
chaHbogh verengan'e'}, which is more important to emphasize as the topic of
the sentence: that the people you're talking about are liars, or that
they're Ferengi? Pick one, and build your sentence accordingly.

I enjoy asking questions about the weird possibilities of Klingon grammar
as much as the next person, assuming that the next person really enjoys it.
(I've got some questions on the prefix trick...) But after a while you have
to realize that you're probably not opening up productive new avenues of
linguistic innovation, you're just trying to convince yourself that
nonsense isn't nonsense. At best, you're just coming up with new kinds of
{chIch pabHa'ghach} "intentional ungrammaticality", like using prefixless
{tu'lu'} with plural objects, or using an adverbial with a nominalized
verb. We don't really have a context for using intentional ungrammaticality
very often on the mailing list.

* I do wonder about sentences of the form {X verbbogh Y'e' ghaH Z'e'},
where the {-'e'} is used as a pronoun-copula subject marker AND as a
relative-clause head-noun marker. My suspicion is that it's probably okay,
because the first {-'e'} marks the topic of the relative clause while the
second marks the topic of the main clause, but there's no examples I'm
aware of.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.kli.org/pipermail/tlhingan-hol-kli.org/attachments/20170912/79fc823d/attachment.htm>