[tlhIngan Hol] Type 9-ed verb as SAO

[jevreh at qeylis.net]

> On Dec 1, 2019, at 16:59, Will Martin <willmartin2 at mac.com> wrote:
> 
> I’m feeling deja vu all over again.
> 
> I think we’ve been here before.
> 
> Basically, you are inventing grammar and wondering whether or not it would work.
>> 
>> The weirdest canon usage of an SAO pronoun that I know of is 'a'Setbur’s line {'e' neHbe' vavoy} from TUC. It’s remarkable because:
>> 
…
>>  From context, it seems that {'e'} here is really referring to just the {QamvIS Hegh} part, which isn’t a full sentence. So even if we don’t have a canonical instance of something like {bIpawDI' 'e' lutu'}, it does seem that what’s written in TKD isn’t the end of the story when it comes to SAO pronouns.

Not inventing grammar though, based on the example Hugh gave (from canon). I get the sense that Hugh is trying to derive further understanding of the language based on the inductive reasoning process. I’m unsure why you feel this is so problematic. There’s a difference between “we should do this thing that isn’t supported” and “this seems to make sense, is it supported”.

Rather than being dismissive, why not try offering an alternate explanation for the grammatical nature of the TUC example provided? He went to the trouble of finding an example that seemed to support his position and you couldn’t even be bothered to address it.

I’ve wondered the same thing about how ‘e’ might actually be used; and many of the potential cases that Hugh conjectures seem like logical applications. I find the TUC example interesting as well, and it makes me think I need to rewatch that movie.

—jevreH