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

[Will Martin]

qatlho’. choponchu’ta’.

That was exactly what I was looking for.

pItlh

charghwI’ ‘utlh
(ghaH, ghaH, -Daj)




> On Jun 12, 2022, at 8:10 PM, De'vID <de.vid.jonpin at gmail.com> wrote:
> 
> 
> 
> On Mon, 13 Jun 2022 at 01:49, Will Martin <lojmitti7wi7nuv at gmail.com <mailto:lojmitti7wi7nuv at gmail.com>> wrote:
> I’m quite surprised that we can place a Sentence As Object between a Main Clause and its dependent clause. I saw nothing in TKD that ever suggested such a thing.
> 
> We’ve seen an example, {‘e’ neHbe’ vav’oy}? where the {‘e’} referred to an entire paragraph preceding the statement; something someone else said. So, we’ve seen {‘e’} stretch back to refer to context. I’ve never seen it encapsulate a clause as object to within the boundary of a larger sentence. I really thing that’s a remarkable stretch from anything we’ve seen. I consider that to be remarkable to consider that justified.
> 
> {bIQapqu'meH tar DaSop 'e' DatIvnIS} "To really succeed, you must enjoy eating poison" (TKW p.73)
> 
> The main clause here is {'e' DatIvnIS}. The subordinate clause is {bIQapqu'meH}. The sentence-as-object {tar DaSop} sits between them.
> 
> -- 
> De'vID
> _______________________________________________
> 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/20220612/882d520e/attachment-0016.htm>