[tlhIngan Hol] Agreement with pronouns

[De'vID]

On Fri, 12 Oct 2018 at 19:30, SuStel <sustel at trimboli.name> wrote:

> Just noticed this line in *paq'batlh:*
>
> DaH mararchuq
>     mayIntaHvIS
>     wa' Dol bIH qa''e' porgh'e' je
>
> We are now connected,
>     Spirit and body are one,
>     Until our time comes.
>
> What's of interest is the sentence *wa' Dol bIH qa''e' porgh'e' je.* This
> demonstrates clearly that when you've got a "to be" sentence with a topic
> as well as a noun, the pronoun agrees with the topic, not the first noun. *wa'
> Dol* is singular; *qa''e' porgh'e' je* is plural. *bIH* is plural. It's
> not *wa' Dol 'oH qa''e' porgh'e' je.*
>
I am experiencing {nIbpoH}, the feeling I have done this before...

[Enterprise explodes]

On Thu, 4 Feb 2016 at 19:36, SuStel <sustel at trimboli.name> wrote:

> Another interesting tidbit from paq'batlh:
>
> [pe']
>
> First, in the {wa' Dol} line, we have the pronoun agreeing with the
> subject but not the object. {wa' Dol} is an {'oH}; {qa''e' porgh'e' je}
> are plural.
>
> Second, we know that a {qa'} is capable of using language, but the
> combination {qa' porgh je} has gotten the pronoun {bIH}, which indicates
> no language ability. A {porgh} is undoubtedly an {'oH}, not a {ghaH}, so
> the conjunction of these two "genders" has led to the less
> language-capable one controlling the pronoun.
>

-- 
De'vID
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.kli.org/pipermail/tlhingan-hol-kli.org/attachments/20181013/c0e9c63a/attachment-0031.htm>