[tlhIngan Hol] info from paq'batlh that's not really new

[Iikka Hauhio]

​De'vID:

> A: {qatlh Sutamchu'?} "Why are you all silent?"
> B1: {tlhIH(1), SuvwI'pu' Hem,} "You, proud warriors,"
> C: {boghIjlu''a'?} "Are you afraid?"
> B2: {tlhIH(2) je, qanra' puqloD,} "And you, sons of Kahnrah,"
> D: {pejatlh!} "Speak up!"

​

I'm confused about this. First of all, B1 is a vocative expression of C and B2 is a vocative expression of D. They are different sentences. But even we somehow accept that B1 and B2 are parts of the same sentence, we get this:

tlhIH, SuvwI'pu' Hem, tlhIH je, qanra' puqloD

I don't understand how the apposition qanra' puqloD can come after je. My understanding is that je ends the whole noun phrase. Therefore, if we want to connect an apposition to a noun phrase inside the je phrase, we should put it before je:

tlhIH, SuvwI'pu' Hem, tlhIH, qanra' puqloD je

I add parentheses around the noun phrases:

(tlhIH, SuvwI'pu' Hem) (tlhIH, qanra' puqloD) je

I think this is obviously allowed. However, if we move the second apposition after je, the second noun phrase stops, then comes je and then the noun phrase continues. This just seems odd to me.

Iikka "fergusq" Hauhio
------- Original Message -------
On Friday, June 24th, 2022 at 19.36, De'vID <de.vid.jonpin at gmail.com> wrote:

> On Fri, 24 Jun 2022 at 14:36, D qunen'oS <mihkoun at gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> De'vID:
>>> It's not elided. Both of the conjoined nouns are written.
>>> {tlhIH(1), SuvwI'pu' Hem,} "You, proud warriors,"
>>> {boghIjlu''a'?} "Are you afraid?"
>>
>>> {tlhIH(2) je, qanra' puqloD,} "And you, sons of Kahnrah,"
>>
>> Ok, I can understand this.
>>
>> But again, the nouns being conjoined aren't in the same sentence. They're at different sentences.
>
> They *are* in the same sentence. Ignoring the appositives, that sentence is {tlhIH tlhIH je}, a vocative (an exclamation).
>
> A: {qatlh Sutamchu'?} "Why are you all silent?"
> B1: {tlhIH(1), SuvwI'pu' Hem,} "You, proud warriors,"
> C: {boghIjlu''a'?} "Are you afraid?"
> B2: {tlhIH(2) je, qanra' puqloD,} "And you, sons of Kahnrah,"
> D: {pejatlh!} "Speak up!"
>
> There are four sentences here: A, B, C, and D. Sentence B gets interrupted by sentence C, and then resumes.
>
> There is no new grammar here. I repeat: there is no new grammar here.
>
> The fact that sometimes, when a person is speaking, they'll interrupt something they're saying mid-sentence, say something else, and then resume the original sentence, is not something that can or needs to be formulated into a rule of grammar. It's just a feature of any language. You can do this in English, or in Greek, but you won't find a rule in a grammar textbook book for English or Greek telling you how to do this.
>
>> So, (if I understand this correctly) I can say to a singer: {SoH bItlhIb, bIbomtaHvIS, qoghDu'wIj vIpoSnISmoH}, and then say to another singer {SoH je, bIbomtaHvIS, vIghro'mey HoH ghoghlIj}.
>>
>> The thing I'm wondering though is whether for this to work, on the first sentence we would necessarily need to write the {SoH}, or whether we would only need the second one.
>
> If you're wondering this, then you haven't understood what's going on.
>
> The entire point is that there is no new grammar here. {je} still conjoins two (or more) nouns by coming at the end.
>
> --
>
> De'vID
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.kli.org/pipermail/tlhingan-hol-kli.org/attachments/20220625/85709366/attachment-0015.htm>