<html><head><meta http-equiv="content-type" content="text/html; charset=utf-8"></head><body dir="auto"><div>On Jun 9, 2017, at 3:03 PM, SuStel <<a href="mailto:sustel@trimboli.name">sustel@trimboli.name</a>> wrote:</div><div><br></div><blockquote type="cite"><div>For instance, Captain Klaa's
utterance <b>reH DIvI' Duj vISuv vIneH</b> <i>I've always wanted
to fight a Federation ship</i> becomes perfectly reasonable
without any special grammatical exceptions if we simply look at it
as <b>reH [DIvI' Duj vISuv vIneH],</b> where the brackets
delineate a sentence, not just a "construction."</div></blockquote><span style="background-color: rgba(255, 255, 255, 0);"><div><span style="background-color: rgba(255, 255, 255, 0);"><br></span></div>It is already an exception, as {neH} does not use the object {'e'}. It has occasionally been suggested that the "previous sentence" is the actual object of {neH}. I think that is no more of a stretch than what you propose.</span><div><span style="background-color: rgba(255, 255, 255, 0);"><br></span></div><div><span style="background-color: rgba(255, 255, 255, 0);">I do see the distinction between generalizing and making exceptions. I'm just not sure it is worth generalizing "all SAO constructions are sentences" in order to handle the Klaa example, when a small codicil on {neH} works to explain both the placement of {reH} and the lack of {'e'}.</span></div><div><span style="background-color: rgba(255, 255, 255, 0);"><br></span></div><div><span style="background-color: rgba(255, 255, 255, 0);"><br></span></div><div><span style="background-color: rgba(255, 255, 255, 0);">I think it is uncontroversial to call complex sentences made with conjunctions "sentences". Do we have any examples of such sentences where an adverbial or subordinate clause applies to the entire thing, or do they attach to only one main verb? The comparison isn't perfectly applicable to a SAO, but it could be instructive.<br><br>-- ghunchu'wI'</span></div></body></html>