<html>
<head>
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=UTF-8">
</head>
<body text="#000000" bgcolor="#FFFFFF">
<div class="moz-cite-prefix">On 3/26/2019 10:26 AM, mayqel qunen'oS
wrote:<br>
</div>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:CAP7F2cL7=AFFpiH=vXx50mm=S646MVLhLw0EYUD0o=i0+r60cw@mail.gmail.com">
<pre class="moz-quote-pre" wrap="">jIH:
</pre>
<blockquote type="cite" style="color: #000000;">
<pre class="moz-quote-pre" wrap="">bIvoqbe', 'ej muSuj
you don't believe, and it (this fact) disturbs me
</pre>
</blockquote>
<pre class="moz-quote-pre" wrap="">SuStel:
</pre>
<blockquote type="cite" style="color: #000000;">
<pre class="moz-quote-pre" wrap="">What you're really doing is bIvoqbe' 'ej muSuj 'e'. This is, of course, not allowed.
</pre>
</blockquote>
<pre class="moz-quote-pre" wrap="">I understand your reasoning, and it convinces me.
But doesn't this reasoning mean that the {tlhIngan maH! taHjaj!}, is
wrong too ? Isn't the {tlhIngan maH! taHjaj!}, actually {tlhIngan maH!
taHjaj 'e'!} ?
I know that it is blasphemous to dare and question something which has
been celebrated as a feat of linguistic ingenuity.. I really do. But,
- holy sith ! -, I'm sure as hell, that if a mere mortal had come up
with this phrase, he would have been executed on the spot.</pre>
</blockquote>
<p><b>tlhIngan maH taHjaj</b> is (a) a slogan, and (b) not
canonical. As a slogan, it's not going to be careful to ensure
everyone knows what the antecedent of its elided pronouns are. As
a non-canonical sentence, it's not a data point in what can and
cannot be said.</p>
<p>Now, I have no doubt that Okrand will canonize <b>tlhIngan maH
taHjaj</b> the first chance he gets, if he hasn't already and I
don't remember. There's nothing ungrammatical about it; as with
your sentence, you can assume the subject of <b>taHjaj</b> is an
elided noun, like <b>ghu'vam</b> or something. I suspect it
doesn't matter in the same way that the subject of <b>SIS</b>
doesn't matter.</p>
<p>Everybody keeps acting like I'm passing down an an edict, but I'm
not. You asked whether you could say <b>bIvoqbe' 'ej muSuj,</b>
and I said it's not ungrammatical. I questioned whether you really
were eliding a <b>ngoDvam</b> or if you were really just eliding
an <b>'e'</b> and not admitting it to yourself.</p>
<p>And I still think <b>muSuj voqbe'ghachlIj</b> is the best
translation of the line.<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>