<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="">In my fantasies, I think of myself as defiant enough to use a Type 7 suffix on the main verb of a second sentence in a Sentence As Object construction… but in fact, when I’m writing and I’m faced with an opportunity to do this… I find some entirely different way to state what I was going to say that doesn’t involve SAO at all, especially since I think that overusing it is lazy. There are often other ways of saying things, especially when the temptation is to string out multiple SAOAOAOAO constructions.</div><div class=""><br class=""></div><div class="">So, yes, I do accept the rules and follow them, but typically not by implying a missing Type 7 in SAO. More likely, I’ll just recast the whole thing and avoid the entire issue. Ditto for {-moH} ditransitives. I don’t have to break rules I don’t like. I can just go somewhere else and avoid the entire problem.</div><div class=""><br class=""></div><div class="">For me, the whole point of writing in Klingon is to work within the limits and still come up with clear, meaningful expressions. I’ll make enough unintentional mistakes. I don’t need to make any intentional ones.</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 27, 2019, at 1:43 PM, nIqolay Q <<a href="mailto:niqolay0@gmail.com" class="">niqolay0@gmail.com</a>> wrote:</div><br class="Apple-interchange-newline"><div class=""><div dir="ltr" class=""><div dir="ltr" class=""><div dir="ltr" class=""><div dir="ltr" class=""><div class="gmail_quote"><div class="">On Wed, Mar 27, 2019 at 1:07 PM Will Martin <<a href="mailto:willmartin2@mac.com" class="">willmartin2@mac.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 style="overflow-wrap: break-word;" class=""><div class=""></div><div class="">I mean, if you can just imagine a pronoun that can act as subject of the second sentence and represent the first sentence, why not just imagine a pronoun acting as object of the second sentence that represents the first sentence? Poof! No need for {‘e’} or {net}. Any sentence can just be invisibly represented by any unstated pronoun acting as subject or object in the following sentence.</div></div></blockquote><div class=""><br class=""></div><div class=""><div style="font-family:arial,helvetica,sans-serif" class="gmail_default">You can already do that. For example, <br class=""></div><div style="font-family:arial,helvetica,sans-serif" class="gmail_default">TKD: <b class="">vIta'pu'be'.</b> <i class="">I didn't do it.</i></div><div style="font-family:arial,helvetica,sans-serif" class="gmail_default"></div><div style="font-family:arial,helvetica,sans-serif" class="gmail_default"><i class=""></i></div><div style="font-family:arial,helvetica,sans-serif" class="gmail_default"><i class=""><br class=""></i></div><div style="font-family:arial,helvetica,sans-serif" class="gmail_default">There's also this dialogue from ST6:<br class=""><a href="https://www.kli.org/tlhIngan-Hol/2006/May/msg00201.html" class="">https://www.kli.org/tlhIngan-Hol/2006/May/msg00201.html</a><br class=""><div class=""> </div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left:1px solid rgb(204,204,204);padding-left:1ex">Chang: narghta'? narghta'.<br class=""> ([They have] Escaped.)<br class="">Grokh: qay'be'. Daq SovlaHbe'taH qIrq.<br class=""> (Kirk cannot know the location of the peace conference.)<br class=""> {It does not matter ... Kirk cannot know the location.}<br class="">Chang: DaSovbej'a'? bISuDrup'a'?<br class=""> (Are you sure? Will you take that chance?)<br class=""> {Are you sure [of that]? ... Are you willing to take that<br class=""> chance?}<br class=""></blockquote><br class=""><b class="">DaSovbej'a' </b>has an unstated pronoun as object, referring to Grokh's sentence. (Grokh's sentence also uses <b class="">qay'be'</b>, with an unstated subject referring to Chang's earlier statement that Kirk and Spock had escaped.) Leaving out <b class="">'e'</b> might cause confusion if there's something else in the context that might also work as a third-person subject, and the two sentences may feel less connected into a single thought, but it's not the end of the world if you leave it out.<br class=""></div><div style="font-family:arial,helvetica,sans-serif" class="gmail_default"><i class=""></i></div><div style="font-family:arial,helvetica,sans-serif" class="gmail_default"><i class=""></i></div><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 style="overflow-wrap: break-word;" class=""><div class="">So, I repeat, it is not ungrammatical. It is merely hideous. You can’t rely on your reader/listener to consistently realize, “OH, I GET IT. THAT UNSTATED SUBJECT OF THE SECOND VERB REPRESTENTS THE ENTIRE PREVIOUS SENTENCE. WHAT A GREAT IDEA? WHY DIDN’T OKRAND THINK OF THAT?</div></div></blockquote><div class=""><br class=""></div><div class=""><div style="font-family:arial,helvetica,sans-serif" class="gmail_default">He did think of that, at least four times. I mentioned them in my earlier posts. I assume the reason he did not spell this out formally is because <span class="gmail_default" style="font-family:arial,helvetica,sans-serif">he didn't think he needed to explain to his audience how to use "it".</span><br class=""><span class="gmail_default" style="font-family:arial,helvetica,sans-serif"></span></div></div><div class=""><span class="gmail_default" style="font-family:arial,helvetica,sans-serif"><br class=""></span></div></div></div></div></div></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>