[tlhIngan Hol] can we place type-5 noun suffixes on the {'e'} of a sao ?

[Will Martin]

I’m just curious. What does this rather complex construction give you that the simpler {verengan ‘opuHwI’ ghaHmo’ SoSlI’’e’, not Qang Damoj} fails to convey?

I’m not commenting on the validity of your original. Okrand or the community at large can decide that. I’m at peace with whatever they decide. I’m just wondering why the more straightforward approach is less preferable.

My goal is simple curiosity and amusement. My hope is that you can be more amused by the continued discussion than distressed by it.

charghwI’ vaghnerya’ngan

rInpa’ bomnIS be’’a’ pI’.




> On Jan 15, 2020, at 9:14 AM, mayqel qunen'oS <mihkoun at gmail.com> wrote:
> 
> SuStel:
> > The pronouns 'e' and net "are always 
> > treated as the object of the verb." 
> > Therefore this is ungrammatical, because > 'e'mo' is not the object of moj.
> 
> hmm..
> 
> I didn't see that coming..
> 
> maj.
> 
> Lets approach this differently.
> 
> We know we can say:
> 
> vIghro' tIQ'e' vIQej
> I cherish the ANCIENT CAT 
> 
> So, we *can* place the emphatic {'e'} on the object.
> 
> With that in mind, lets write:
> 
> {verengan 'opuHwI' ghaH SoSlI''e'; 'e''e' wISovmo', not Qang Damoj}
> 
> Your mother is a ferengi prostitute; because we know THAT, you will never become a chancellor
> 
> Would this be correct ?
> 
> ~ mayqel qunen'oS
> _______________________________________________
> 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/20200115/6e1363be/attachment-0002.htm>