<html>
<head>
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=UTF-8">
</head>
<body>
<div class="moz-cite-prefix">On 7/28/2020 11:21 AM, Will Martin
wrote:<br>
</div>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:F4DCCBF3-B54F-47C6-9CD2-CFE8D1D50292@mac.com">I posted
the more detailed critique less to be right than to expand on a
broader sense of where the limits are, knowing that if I was
overextending, you’d catch me and we’d all benefit from the more
detailed explanation.</blockquote>
<p>Or you could, y'know, just ask.<br>
</p>
<p><br>
</p>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:F4DCCBF3-B54F-47C6-9CD2-CFE8D1D50292@mac.com">
<div class="">Trying to wrap my head around what he’s doing here,
it seems that in all cases except your favorite, he has worked
optional word order so that clauses that optionally could follow
the main clause precede it, instead, which stops what would
otherwise encapsulate the first sentence of SAO in the second
sentence.</div>
</blockquote>
<p>Nobody is talking about making the first sentence a dependent
clause. Semantically, it never makes any sense to do so.<br>
</p>
<p><br>
</p>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:F4DCCBF3-B54F-47C6-9CD2-CFE8D1D50292@mac.com">
<div class="">In that “best of all” example, he breaks that rule,
except that he uses stanzas to make it clear where the SAO
attaches itself.</div>
</blockquote>
<p>Because it's part of a relative clause, the entirety of which is
treated like any other noun phrase, just as TKD tells us to do:
"The whole construction (relative clause plus head noun), as a
unit, is used in a sentence as a noun."<br>
</p>
<p><br>
</p>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:F4DCCBF3-B54F-47C6-9CD2-CFE8D1D50292@mac.com">
<div class="">And that brings me to wonder to what extent
paq’batlh is poetry, and therefore not confined to the grammar
we generally need to hold ourselves to.</div>
</blockquote>
<p>Sigh. You want prose?</p>
<p><b>QeyHa'choHtaH tuj yoD 'e' botmeH cholHa'meH 'eDSeHcha baH
Glenn 'e' ra'<br>
</b><i>Glenn commanded the repulsion thrusters be fired in order
to prevent the heat shield from coming loose.</i></p>
<p><a href="http://klingon.wiki/En/GoFlight">http://klingon.wiki/En/GoFlight</a></p>
<p>But this is only a transcript.</p>
<p>Voragh quoted a speech given by the translator of <i>paq'batlh</i>
which he believes was written by Okrand. The first line is</p>
<p><b>tlhIHvaD paq chu' wImuch 'e' bochaw'mo' chequvmoH 'ej
chebelmoH.</b></p>
<p>And finally, there's no semantic reason why we SHOULDN'T do this.
It makes perfect sense. <b>bIjatlh 'e' DamevDI'</b><i> When you
stop talking</i> is a perfectly simple subordinate clause. We
KNOW that when Okrand says "sentence" he means "OVS clause." We
KNOW he's used it himself. We KNOW exactly what it means. The ONLY
reason to question it is a demonstrably over-strict reading of
TKD.<br>
</p>
<br>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:F4DCCBF3-B54F-47C6-9CD2-CFE8D1D50292@mac.com">
<div class="">I’m not arguing that we can’t accept this as canon.
I’m just wondering whether this is great canon for grammar in
general, or if it hints at a generalizable truth about the
grammar, but poetically extends it beyond spoken norm in that
one example, since it uses a stanza — a tool of poetry — to put
the first sentence of SAO directly in front of the verb it needs
to be attached to, or whether the entire use of SAO with
Type-9-affixed verbs is poetic and not generalizable.</div>
</blockquote>
<p>If there were just one instance of it in <i>paq'batlh,</i> I'd
agree that it must be referenced cautiously. But it's used ELEVEN
TIMES in the body of the work with no indication whatsoever that
it's poetic license, and it's used twice more in passages that are
very likely to be Okrand's words. There's reasonable caution, and
then there's obstinacy.<br>
</p>
<p><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>