<html>
<head>
<meta content="text/html; charset=windows-1252"
http-equiv="Content-Type">
</head>
<body bgcolor="#FFFFFF" text="#000000">
<div class="moz-cite-prefix">On 7/11/2016 12:18 PM, Steven Boozer
wrote:<br>
</div>
<blockquote
cite="mid:ACF6622D959A8842A81E4471BA56A7E05C3DB6C6@xm-mbx-06-prod"
type="cite">
<pre wrap="">qunnoq :
</pre>
<br>
<blockquote type="cite">
<pre wrap="">Other than that, the first sentence goes :
{nughraj Dun lurDechmeyraj Dun je DIvuvta' 'e' lutul[]
HaDwI'pu' 'ej vItul jIH}
But shouldn't there be an {'e'} before the {vItul jIH}?
I mean, shouldn't we have the following sentence instead?
</pre>
</blockquote>
<pre wrap="">
I think that the second {'e'} before {vItul jIH} has been elided because 1) the two clauses are so short closely related (they have the same verb, if different subjects); and 2) a second {'e'} might make the listener think the sentence-as-object (SAO) referred to was {lutul HaDwI'pu'} and not {DIvuvta'}.
... DIvuvta' 'e' lutul HaDwI'pu' ('ej vItul jIH)
The editors hope (and I hope) that we-have-respected-them
</pre>
</blockquote>
<br>
<p>I think it's <b>DIvuvta' ('e' lutul HaDwI'pu' 'ej vItul jIH).</b>
The "second sentence" of the sentence-as-object happens to be a
compound sentence, but it's still a sentence. The object of the <b>vItul
jIH</b> part is still <b>'e',</b> but it has been elided
because it is was already used in the first sentence of the
conjunction, exactly the same way that <b>yaS vIlegh 'ej vIqIp</b>
elides an object noun in section 6.2.1 of TKD.</p>
<p>Always, always, always remember that <i>all</i>
sentence-as-object constructions are simply two sentences pushed
together; <b>'e'</b> and <b>net</b> are <i>not</i> conjunctions
or linking words.<br>
</p>
<pre class="moz-signature" cols="72">--
SuStel
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="http://trimboli.name">http://trimboli.name</a></pre>
</body>
</html>