<html><head><meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=utf-8"></head><body style="word-wrap: break-word; -webkit-nbsp-mode: space; line-break: after-white-space;" class=""><div class="">I was completely on board with this, until I thought about it a little deeper. Then it got weird, until I though even deeper, and now, it all makes sense, and I completely agree. You can skip the rest of this, unless you are interested in a thought experiment.</div><div class=""><br class=""></div><div class="">In terms of grammatical construction, yes, it appears to be completely correct, following all the grammatical rules we know. In this case {-‘e’} is doing two things:</div><div class=""><br class=""></div><div class="">1. It is doing what it always does in sentences like {tlhIngan ghaH Qanqor’e’}. We can argue about what the {-‘e’} is doing there, but we can’t really argue about whether or not it should be there. It just should. That’s how this kind of sentence always works. It’s like {-tu’lu’}. You can’t mess with it. Just do it. Don’t think too much about it.</div><div class=""><br class=""></div><div class="">2. It is marking the explicit head noun of a relative clause when the verb defining the relative clause has both a subject and an object. {puq’e’ qIppu’bogh loD Sov be’.} The woman knows the child who was hit by the man. {put qIppu’bogh loD’e’ Sov be’.} The woman knows the man who hit the child. Fine so far.</div><div class=""><br class=""></div><div class="">Toss these two into a barrel, toss in some seasonings, and you get {yIHmey bIHbe’bogh Ha’DIbaHmey’e’ vImaS.} I prefer animals which are not tribbles. No problem.</div><div class=""><br class=""></div><div class="">Hmmm.</div><div class=""><br class=""></div><div class="">Okay, I completely agree that this is correct, now that I’ve fully explored what is going on here.</div><div class=""><br class=""></div><div class="">The issue is that the underlying relative clause is false as a main clause — {yIHmey bIHbe’ Ha’DIbaHmey’e’}. Animals are not tribbles.</div><div class=""><br class=""></div><div class="">Well, most of them are not tribbles, but…</div><div class=""><br class=""></div><div class="">What is a subset of what?</div><div class=""><br class=""></div><div class="">Going back to {tlhIngan ghaH Qanqor’e’}, the final noun with {-‘e’} is a subset of the first noun, or is the unity of the first noun, as in {SoSwI’ ghaH ‘elva’’e’}. You never say {Qanqor ghaH tlhIngan’e’} unless you are speaking about a specific Klingon who happens to be Krankor. The word with {-‘e’} is never the larger set of the two.</div><div class=""><br class=""></div><div class="">But when you negate the pronoun-as-verb-to-be, in a relative clause you reverse roles of set and subset. Clearly {Ha’DIbaHmey} is the set, and {yIHmey} is the subset. You are negating the subset from the set, resulting in “the other subset”. In other words, there’s a subset of animals that are tribbles and a different subset of animals that are not tribbles.</div><div class=""><br class=""></div><div class="">My confusion was that I wanted to ask how you would express the other side of the two options in example 2 above without thinking it through. At first glimpse, you can’t move the {-‘e’}, so you’d have to reverse the two nouns… blah, blah, blah, but what would I be saying? I prefer tribbles that are not animals?</div><div class=""><br class=""></div><div class="">But all tribbles ARE animals. Huh?</div><div class=""><br class=""></div><div class="">Riiiiight.</div><div class=""><br class=""></div><div class="">Okay, so I slowly come to understand the oddness of a negative “to-be” relative clause at this new, deeper level.</div><br class=""><div class="">
<div dir="auto" style="word-wrap: break-word; -webkit-nbsp-mode: space; line-break: after-white-space;" class=""><div style="caret-color: rgb(0, 0, 0); color: rgb(0, 0, 0); font-family: Helvetica; font-size: 12px; font-style: normal; font-variant-caps: normal; font-weight: normal; letter-spacing: normal; text-align: start; text-indent: 0px; text-transform: none; white-space: normal; word-spacing: 0px; -webkit-text-stroke-width: 0px; text-decoration: none;">charghwI’ vaghnerya’ngan<br class=""><br class="">rInpa’ bomnIS be’’a’ pI’.</div><div style="caret-color: rgb(0, 0, 0); color: rgb(0, 0, 0); font-family: Helvetica; font-size: 12px; font-style: normal; font-variant-caps: normal; font-weight: normal; letter-spacing: normal; text-align: start; text-indent: 0px; text-transform: none; white-space: normal; word-spacing: 0px; -webkit-text-stroke-width: 0px; text-decoration: none;" class=""><br class=""></div><br class="Apple-interchange-newline"></div><br class="Apple-interchange-newline">
</div>
<div><br class=""><blockquote type="cite" class=""><div class="">On Mar 22, 2019, at 11:52 AM, SuStel <<a href="mailto:sustel@trimboli.name" class="">sustel@trimboli.name</a>> wrote:</div><br class="Apple-interchange-newline"><div class="">
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=UTF-8" class="">
<div text="#000000" bgcolor="#FFFFFF" class="">
<div class="moz-cite-prefix">On 3/22/2019 11:47 AM, nIqolay Q wrote:<br class="">
</div>
<blockquote type="cite" cite="mid:CAG84SOsfzMDbh6iosxaZp5HQ_70kR45YfMjcoMt5zOv8-e-wNw@mail.gmail.com" class="">
<div dir="ltr" class="gmail_attr">On Thu, Mar 21, 2019 at 8:17 PM
Christa Hansberry <<a href="mailto:chransberry@gmail.com" moz-do-not-send="true" class="">chransberry@gmail.com</a>> wrote:<br class="">
</div>
<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px
0.8ex;border-left:1px solid rgb(204,204,204);padding-left:1ex">
<div dir="ltr" class="">
<div dir="auto" class="">If I wanted to say, for example, "animals
which are not tribbles", how would I do it? I don't think
*yIHmey bIHbe'bogh Ha'DIbaHmey('e'?)* would be
grammatical... but is there a good way to say it? <br class="">
</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
<div class=""><br class="">
</div>
<div style="font-family:arial,helvetica,sans-serif" class="gmail_default">Why wouldn't it be grammatical?
Pronouns-as-copula can take <b class="">-be'</b>: <b class="">loD Quch jIHbe'<i class="">.</i></b>
They can take <b class="">-bogh</b>: paq'batlh has <b class="">ghaHtaHbogh</b>.
<b class="">yIHmey bIHbe'bogh Ha'DIbaHmey'e'</b> seems completely fine to
me.</div>
</blockquote><p class="">Note that the <b class="">-'e'</b> is not optional here.</p><p class="">Not only is it grammatical, but I don't see any reason not to say
it either, if it best expresses what you mean.<br class="">
</p>
<pre class="moz-signature" cols="72">--
SuStel
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="http://trimboli.name/">http://trimboli.name</a></pre>
</div>
_______________________________________________<br class="">tlhIngan-Hol mailing list<br class=""><a href="mailto:tlhIngan-Hol@lists.kli.org" class="">tlhIngan-Hol@lists.kli.org</a><br class="">http://lists.kli.org/listinfo.cgi/tlhingan-hol-kli.org<br class=""></div></blockquote></div><br class=""></body></html>