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

mayqel qunen'oS mihkoun at gmail.com
Mon May 13 09:03:24 PDT 2019


SuStel:
> It's because pronoun sentences already
> have a correct form, with the topic at the
> end.

ok, I see.

So, pronoun sentences aside, what would your opinion be with regards to the
following sentences ?

{tlhInganpu''e', maHvaD Dujmeychaj nojQo'}
as for the klingons, they refuse to lend us their ships

{tlhInganpu''e', qajatlhpu', maHvaD Dujmeychaj nojQo'}
as for the klingons, I've told you, they refuse to lend us their ships

{tlhInganpu''e', maHvaD Dujmeychaj nojqang net jalchugh, vaj QangvaD
langmeH mIw vImuch}
as for the klingons, if they were willing to lend us their ships, then I
would present for the chancellor a thinning program.

Are the above wrong ?
Are the above correct ?
or..
Are the above correct, *only* if I want to emphasize ?

SuStel:
> And it's fairly clear from TKD that another
> normal application of the rules is to add
> noun phrases to the fronts of sentences
> when their syntactic roles are known,
> whether by suffix or by their identification as
> time expressions.

By "identification as time expressions" you mean something like the
following ?

{cha'leS ram, vIghro' tIQ wIquvmoH}
the night of day after tomorrow, we honor the ancient cat

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

Now, you lost me..

Lets remove the ambiguity, of whether its singular of plural, by writing:
{vIghro'mey tIQ'e' novmey bIH}. Would you accept this to say "as for
ancient cats, they are aliens" ?

SuStel:
> I've got no problem with that. mayqel wasn't
> translating something with emphasis.

So, as I understand, if I wrote:

{vIghro'mey tIQ'e' novmey bIH}
as for ancient cats, they are aliens

Then this is correct and acceptable *only* if I want to translate something
with emphasis, right ?

SuStel:
> I've got no problem with that. mayqel wasn't
> translating something with emphasis.

So, if I understand correctly, at the Ca'Non phrase {qIbDaq SuvwI''e' SoH
Dun law' Hoch Dun puS}, the translation isn't actually "as for (a)
warrior(s)..", but rather "as for (A) WARRIOR(S)..". It is formulated this
way (with the {-'e'} marked noun), for emphasis.

right ?

~ m. qunen'oS
let the Ca'Non flow through you
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.kli.org/pipermail/tlhingan-hol-kli.org/attachments/20190513/8ad62800/attachment.html>


More information about the tlhIngan-Hol mailing list