[tlhIngan Hol] Noun marked with {-'e'} at the beginning of the sentence

De'vID de.vid.jonpin at gmail.com
Mon May 13 08:43:26 PDT 2019


On Mon, 13 May 2019 at 17:14, mayqel qunen'oS <mihkoun at gmail.com> wrote:

> De'vID:
> > Cite your source.
>
> The title of the thread was "[tlhIngan Hol] qep'a' cha'maH loSDIch New
> words and some tidbits". Sent on: Saturday, July 29, 2017 3:57 AM
>
> There, qurgh wrote:
>
> "I asked about fronting nouns marked with {-'e'} as described in the TKD
> Addendum. Marc said that {-'e'} fronted nouns are marked and it should only
> be used in extreme situations. He said one could, if they wanted to, use
> this all the time but it would be similar to an English speaking using
> Shakespearean English all the time."
>

That says something very different than what you claimed ([that the
{vIghro' tIQ'e', nov 'oH} ismore "shakespearean"]). He's not saying that
writing in this way is more Shakespearean, he's saying that writing in this
way would appear as weird to a Klingon speaker as a person writing in
Shakespearean English all the time would appear to a modern English speaker.


> De'vID:
> > They're not the same, though. If there are
> > multiple ancient cats, the latter can mean
> > "as for ancient cats, it is an alien".
>
> Read the thread titled:
>
> "noun with {-'e'} before the {... law' ... puS}" November 19 2018.
>

I read it. It just reinforces my point that the two sentences are
different. If you think otherwise, you'll have to explain how. Plural
markers are optional, so {vIghro' tIQ'e'} could mean either "as for the
ancient cat" or "as for ancient cats".


> Because I'm replying from my phone, I can't find the direct links to the
> archives.
>
> SuStel:
> > One is the way it's said; one is something
> > you made up.
>
> This is what I don't understand, (and I'm trying to):
>
> Why in the {qIbDaq SuvwI''e'..} we *can* introduce the topic at the
> beginning marked with {-'e'} and then follow with a comparative, but we
> can't do the same without following by a comparative.
>
> I'm not saying that we *can*; I'm saying that I can't understand *why* we
> can't.
>
> And believe me, I *do* want to understand.
>

Nobody has said that you can't? It's grammatically valid. It just doesn't
mean what you want it to mean.

-- 
De'vID
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.kli.org/pipermail/tlhingan-hol-kli.org/attachments/20190513/35156c74/attachment.html>


More information about the tlhIngan-Hol mailing list