[tlhIngan Hol] vabDot referring to the {-'e'}d noun

[mayqel qunen'oS]

And thinking this further, perhaps this is the reason one should avoid
placing a noun with the {-'e'} at the beginning of a sentence, as the
topic/subject of the sentence to follow. Meaning, writing things like
{romuluSnganpu''e' chaH ghompu'bogh Seghmey..} for "As for the Romulans,
the races which encountered them..".

If someone places an {-'e'} on a noun which he intends to be the subject of
the sentence to follow, then in the case that he places an adverb right
after that noun, one could wonder whether the {-'e'}ed noun is the subject
of the sentence or the topicalized object of the verb which would follow
the adverb.

Of course, for such confusion to exist the verb prefix would need to allow
that too, and qeylIS knows I'm too tired right now to even attempt writing
such a sentence. But I believe this is another reason *not* to use {-'e'}ed
nouns as just the subject of the sentence which follows.

Perhaps someone will now say: Yes, but there's the example of {qIbDaq
SuvwI''e' SoH Dun law' Hoch Dun puS} "You would be the greatest warrior in
the galaxy".

True, this Ca'Non example exists, but it's a law'/puS construction and not
a "regular" ovs sentence, so no ambiguity can possibly exist.

-- 
Dana'an
https://sacredtextsinklingon.wordpress.com/
Ζεὺς ἦν, Ζεὺς ἐστίν, Ζεὺς ἔσσεται· ὦ μεγάλε Ζεῦ
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.kli.org/pipermail/tlhingan-hol-kli.org/attachments/20220314/6aaef91c/attachment-0001.htm>