[tlhIngan Hol] Type 9-ed verb as SAO

[Hugh Son puqloD]

> On Dec 2, 2019, at 03:39, De'vID <de.vid.jonpin at gmail.com> wrote:
>> On Sun, 1 Dec 2019 at 03:42, Hugh Son puqloD <Hugh at qeylis.net> wrote:
>> Do we have any canon examples of clauses with verbs taking type-9 suffixes which are then used as the object of another verb? For the purposes of this question, ignore {-bogh}, {-ghach}, and {-wI'}, as those all turn the verb into a noun or make it part of a clause that acts as a noun grammatically.
> 
> I couldn't find any. I suspect there isn't one because the construction is not grammatical.

Thanks for checking. I’m not surprised that there are no examples to be found, as I share your suspicion.

What’s your take on what the referent is for the SAO pronoun in {'e' neHbe' vavoy} from TUC? I really doubt it’s the actual previous sentence as a whole ({QamvIS Hegh qaq law' torvIS yIn qaq puS}) because it doesn’t make a whole lot of sense for the late chancellor to have not wanted that comparison to be true, which is how I would interpret {'e'} actually replacing that whole sentence. So I suspect that in this case {'e'} is either replacing a part of the previous sentence (which part is understood from context), or it’s replacing a previous sentence as a whole other than the immediately preceding one (likely {DIHIvlaHtaHvIS DaH DIHIvnIS}), or it’s just referring to some contextually understood “that” which everybody in the conversation is already aware of.

My current thinking is it’s most likely referring to the {DIHIvnIS}, which is still not a usage that the description in TKD supports.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.kli.org/pipermail/tlhingan-hol-kli.org/attachments/20191202/934d16b7/attachment-0010.htm>