[tlhIngan Hol] Verbs of measure

[SuStel]

On 3/26/2019 10:26 AM, mayqel qunen'oS wrote:
> jIH:
>> bIvoqbe', 'ej muSuj
>> you don't believe, and it (this fact) disturbs me
> SuStel:
>> What you're really doing is bIvoqbe' 'ej muSuj 'e'. This is, of course, not allowed.
> I understand your reasoning, and it convinces me.
>
> But doesn't this reasoning mean that the {tlhIngan maH! taHjaj!}, is
> wrong too ? Isn't the {tlhIngan maH! taHjaj!}, actually {tlhIngan maH!
> taHjaj 'e'!} ?
>
> I know that it is blasphemous to dare and question something which has
> been celebrated as a feat of linguistic ingenuity.. I really do. But,
> - holy sith ! -, I'm sure as hell, that if a mere mortal had come up
> with this phrase, he would have been executed on the spot.

*tlhIngan maH taHjaj* is (a) a slogan, and (b) not canonical. As a 
slogan, it's not going to be careful to ensure everyone knows what the 
antecedent of its elided pronouns are. As a non-canonical sentence, it's 
not a data point in what can and cannot be said.

Now, I have no doubt that Okrand will canonize *tlhIngan maH taHjaj* the 
first chance he gets, if he hasn't already and I don't remember. There's 
nothing ungrammatical about it; as with your sentence, you can assume 
the subject of *taHjaj* is an elided noun, like *ghu'vam* or something. 
I suspect it doesn't matter in the same way that the subject of *SIS* 
doesn't matter.

Everybody keeps acting like I'm passing down an an edict, but I'm not. 
You asked whether you could say *bIvoqbe' 'ej muSuj,* and I said it's 
not ungrammatical. I questioned whether you really were eliding a 
*ngoDvam* or if you were really just eliding an *'e'* and not admitting 
it to yourself.

And I still think *muSuj voqbe'ghachlIj* is the best translation of the 
line.

-- 
SuStel
http://trimboli.name

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.kli.org/pipermail/tlhingan-hol-kli.org/attachments/20190326/9960b353/attachment-0010.htm>