[tlhIngan Hol] joining multible {-bogh} phrases by {je}

[SuStel]

On 6/9/2022 9:12 AM, D qunen'oS wrote:
> jIH:
> > HoSbogh Suvqangbogh 'ej matlhbogh vay'
> SuStel:
> > HoSbogh vay', Suvqangbogh, 'ej matlhbogh
> > someone who is strong, willing to fight, and loyal
>
> The reason you placed the {vay'} after the {HoSbogh} (instead of 
> placing it at the end) is for added clarity, or is it wrong to place 
> it at the end?

I'm not sure why everyone has such trouble understanding how this works. 
I think it's because they don't quite realize that when they use a verb 
apparently without a subject or object, that verb still has a subject 
and possibly an object, but they've been elided.

Let's go back to TKD. "In its fullest form, a Klingon sentence repeats 
the noun." The example is *yaS legh puq 'ej yaS qIp puq.* Okay.

Here comes the key part, to which I will add my own emphasis: "It is 
possible, however, to use pronouns rather than nouns /*in the second of 
the joined sentences.*/"

A pronoun wants an antecedent. Not a postcedent. A pronoun wants to 
refer back to a noun that has already been stated.

So TKD gives us the example *yaS legh puq 'ej ghaH qIp ghaH.* The 
*ghaH*'s refer to the previous object and subject, and what's more, the 
object pronoun refers to the previous object noun and the subject 
pronoun refers to the previous subject noun. This sentence implies that 
the child hits the officer, not that the officer hits the child.

Then we're told that "if the context is clear, even the pronoun may be 
left out." TKD's example doesn't follow directly on with the child 
hitting the officer example, so let's look at what that would be: *yaS 
legh puq 'ej qIp.* This still implies that the child hits the officer, 
not that the officer hits the child. Without an explicit reference, we 
have no reason to believe that object and subject have changed from the 
first part.

So how come we don't say *yaS legh 'ej qIp puq?* What's the subject of 
*legh?* It's an elided *ghaH.* But why would you put the pronoun 
/before/ its antecedent? That would be like saying, in English, /She 
sees the officer and the child hits him./ Or perhaps to mirror the 
effect in English better we could switch the use of pronouns: /The 
officer sees her and he hits the child./ Why oh why would you ever want 
to do this?

I mean, I get it: you're thinking of *legh 'ej qIp* as a kind of 
compound verb. Kind of like /The child [sees and hits] the officer./ And 
we have a couple of canonical examples of doing things like that. But 
it's not anywhere near the norm. The norm is to put any subject or 
object on the first verb you can, then switch to pronouns and possibly 
elide those pronouns on subsequent verbs that continue to use the same 
subject and object.

So no, I didn't put the *vay'* after the first verb for added clarity or 
because it is wrong to put it at the end. I put it after the first verb 
because that is the most normal thing to do. To put *vay'* at the end is 
to ask your audience to wonder who's doing all these things until you 
finally get around to naming your subject many words later.


> jIH:
> > Quchbogh Do'bogh vay' 'ej quvmoHlu'bogh
> SuStel:
> > The second one doesn't work like this because
> > vay' is the subject of Quchbogh and Do'bogh but
> > not of quvmoHlu'bogh. You have to split this
> > into multiple phrases.
> > Quchbogh vay' 'ej Do'bogh vIlegh. ghaH quvmoHlu' je.
> > I see someone who is happy and fortunate.
> > He/she is also honored.
>
> I'm afraid I don't understand this.
>
> {Quchbogh Do'bogh vay' 'ej quvmoHlu'bogh}
>
> Can't this be understood as "someone who is happy, who is fortunate, 
> and (he) is honored"?

*vay'* has been the subject all along. Now you're asking someone to 
realize that what was the subject for the previous two verbs has become 
the object of the last verb, even though you don't actually /say/ the 
word. It is, again, not actually ungrammatical, but it is not the normal 
way of doing things. Pronouns referring to antecedents playing a 
specific role don't just change roles without you noting this somehow. 
If you want to make a word change its role, the least courtesy you can 
show it is to restate it.


-- 
SuStel
http://trimboli.name
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.kli.org/pipermail/tlhingan-hol-kli.org/attachments/20220609/9f541b8c/attachment-0015.htm>