[tlhIngan Hol] What would you do ?

[SuStel]

On 5/30/2019 11:12 AM, Daniel Dadap wrote:
>> On May 30, 2019, at 10:07, Daniel Dadap<daniel at dadap.net>  wrote:
>>
>> But he isn’t doing that. This isn’t a chain of SAOs
> Oops, reading your message again I don’t think you were talking about a chain of SAOs, but two 'e' pronouns referring to the same sentence. But what he wrote is still not what you’re suggesting: the two 'e' pronouns each refer to different sentences.

I think charghwI' was thrown by the odd punctuation.

*DaleghlaH; 'e' Sov /dog/vam, nISwI' Daghaj; 'e' Sov je /dog/vam*

I would have punctuated this like so:

*DaleghlaH 'e' Sov /dog/vam; nISwI' Daghaj 'e' Sov je /dog/vam.*

I recommend to mayqel that he not separate the two sentences of a 
sentence-as-object with semicolons. The semicolon is used to show that 
two separate sentences are related. In the Klingon SAO, the two 
sentences aren't just related; the first sentence is actually dependent 
on the second sentence. The first sentence may not even be true, 
depending on what the second sentence says about it. (E.g., *jIpuj 'e' 
vItem*/I deny that I'm weak./) The relationship between sentences in an 
SAO is much closer than a semicolon would suggest.

The semicolon is also a stronger separator than a comma. If you've got a 
sentence of the form

     WWWW; XXXX, YYYY; ZZZZ.

then a normal reading would suggest you've got three ideas here. Idea 1 
is WWWW, idea 2 is XXXX, YYYY, and idea 3 is ZZZZ.

-- 
SuStel
http://trimboli.name

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.kli.org/pipermail/tlhingan-hol-kli.org/attachments/20190530/3374fe12/attachment-0015.htm>