[tlhIngan Hol] not repeating the 'e' of a sao

[Will Martin]

I started to answer this, then decided to let someone else, and it’s still here…

Okay, keep in mind that {romuluSngan Sambogh ‘ej HoHbogh nejwI’} is a noun phrase, and there’s nothing here that can give you any justification for any generalization you’d like to make about SAO.

Basically, this noun phrase describes a device that is associated with Romulans (probably invented by them and used by them) that looks for, finds, and kills people. It doesn’t necessarily kill Romulans. In fact, I’d bet money on the idea that since Klingons have a word for this, it probably kills Klingons. The idea of it is somewhat cowardly from a Klingon perspective, given that a core value of Klingon culture is linked to a sense of honor that requires one to face your enemy and prove that you can kill your enemy in a fair fight, instead of killing him by remote control, which appeals much more to Romulan culture, so I’d even propose that the whole reason that the noun {romuluSngan} is first in the phrase is to emphasize that this is a ROMULAN thing, NOT a KLINGON thing.

Maybe Klingons have other kinds of {nejwI’mey}, and they want to make sure that you understand that the kind that finds and kills people is the ROMULAN kind, or to make a statement about Romulans, just to remind you that THEY are the ones that have {nejwI’mey} that find and kill people.

You don’t want to have three verbs ending in {-wI’} or it will look like three nouns, when you are really describing just one noun.

So, one of the nouns is the verb with {-wI’} and the others need to be relative clauses using {-bogh}. So, that’s two verbs describing the same thing, so you need {‘ej} between them.

So, it is {romuluSngan [Sambogh ‘ej HoHbogh nejwI’]}, but realize that the first word is NOT the direct object of either verb. It’s the first noun of a noun-noun construction, and the two verbs are describing the second noun.

So, if you want to start talking about SAO, you have to start somewhere else. This foundation doesn’t work. You may be able to make your argument, but right now, it’s like you say that apples are not “true to the seed”, meaning that if you plant seeds from a Fuji apple, the tree that grows from that will not give you Fuji apples, therefore, oranges are sweet if you let them ripen before squeezing them.

The first part of your argument has nothing to do with the second part of your argument. They are wholly unrelated.

charghwI’ vaghnerya’ngan

rInpa’ bomnIS be’’a’ pI’.




> On Aug 3, 2020, at 8:21 AM, mayqel qunen'oS <mihkoun at gmail.com> wrote:
> 
> We have the Ca'Non example of:
> 
> romuluSngan Sambogh 'ej HoHbogh nejwI'
> romulan hunter-killer probe
> 
> The way I understand this, it is either:
> 
> romuluSngan (Sambogh 'ej HoHbogh) nejwI'
> (the {Sambogh 'ej HoHbogh} functions like a single verb with a single noun)
> 
> And/or it functions like:
> 
> romuluSngan Sambogh 'ej (romuluSngan) HoHbogh nejwI'
> (the second {romuluSngan} is elided)
> 
> Suppose now, that based on the above, I write:
> 
> Example #1:
> 
> romuluSngan Dujmey Qaw' tlhIngan yo' 'e' luSovbogh 'ej luchaw'bogh
> tera'ngan DIneH
> we want terrans who know and allow that the klingon fleet destroys
> romulan vessels
> 
> Example #2:
> 
> romuluSngan Dujmey Qaw' tlhIngan yo' 'e' luSov 'ej luchaw' tera'ngan
> the terrans know and allow that the klingon fleet destroys the romulan vessels
> 
> Based on the {romuluSngan Sambogh 'ej HoHbogh nejwI'} example, aren't
> the examples 1 & 2 to be accepted as being grammatically correct ?
> 
> ~ Qa'yIn
> _______________________________________________
> tlhIngan-Hol mailing list
> tlhIngan-Hol at lists.kli.org
> http://lists.kli.org/listinfo.cgi/tlhingan-hol-kli.org

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.kli.org/pipermail/tlhingan-hol-kli.org/attachments/20200803/2cb86646/attachment-0015.htm>