[tlhIngan Hol] {net X} vs. {'e' Xlu'}

[De'vID]

On Sat, 11 Jun 2022 at 08:58, De'vID <de.vid.jonpin at gmail.com> wrote:

> These are the examples we have of {'e' Xlu'}. The first two are from TKW
> and the third is from Klingon Monopoly.
>
> yay chavlu' 'e' bajnISlu'. - The victory must be earned by the one who
> achieves it.
> yInlu'taH 'e' bajnISlu'. - The survival must be earned by the one who
> survives.
> DIvI' rojmab qep ghanglu' 'e' nIDlu', 'ach taH qep. - One tries to end the
> peace talks. (This can't be interpreted as someone trying to get someone
> else to end the peace talks. The trier is the ender.)
>
> What the latest information says is that these sentences are part of a
> larger pattern that includes these:
>
> batlhHa' vanglu'taHvIS quv chavbe'lu'. - The one who acts dishonourably is
> the one who does not achieve honour.
> Heghlu'DI' mobbe'lu'chugh QaQqu' Hegh wanI'. - The one who dies is the one
> who is not alone.
> noH QapmeH wo' Qaw'lu'chugh yay chavbe'lu' 'ej wo' choqmeH may'
> DoHlu'chugh lujbe'lu'. - The one who destroys an empire is the one who
> doesn't achieve victory, the one who retreats is the one who doesn't lose.
> pujwI' HIvlu'chugh quvbe'lu'. - If one attacks the weak, the same one does
> not achieve honour.
> 'oy'be'lu'chugh Qapbe'lu'. - One does not succeed if the same one does not
> experience pain.
>

Oh, I just also realised: this new information also explains why it's
{batlh Heghlu'chugh noDnISbe' vay'} and not {batlh Heghlu'chugh
noDnISbe'lu'}.

If we didn't know that the two instances of {-lu'} refer back to the same
indefinite subject in the latter sentence, we might ask why it isn't
{noDnISbe'lu'} since it apparently means the same thing as {noDnISbe'
vay'}. With this new knowledge, it's obvious: the one who dies can't be the
one who takes (or does not need to take) revenge!

It's kind of surprising that this sentence was published in TKW (1996), and
its grammar wasn't fully understood (or explained) until now!

(Or is the fact that multiple uses of {-lu'} in a complex sentence refer
back to the same indefinite subject known information that I've missed? I
was surprised to learn it.)

I wonder how many hidden rules there are in canon sentences which are clear
in retrospect? (I guess that {-taHjaj} being allowed would be another case,
once we find out the circumstances under which {-taHjaj} is allowed...)

-- 
De'vID
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.kli.org/pipermail/tlhingan-hol-kli.org/attachments/20220613/8d956516/attachment-0015.htm>