<html>
<head>
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=UTF-8">
</head>
<body>
<div class="moz-cite-prefix">On 9/28/2020 6:44 AM, Luis Chaparro
Caballero wrote:<br>
</div>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:trinity-db67241b-ae25-45a8-834b-e6ca1d45630a-1601289858606@3c-app-webde-bap44">
<meta http-equiv="content-type" content="text/html; charset=UTF-8">
<div style="font-family: Verdana;font-size: 12.0px;">1. I have
always thought that SAOs work as a "two-sentence-construction"
(TKD 6.2.5). But then, is there any difference between these two
sentences? Does the punctuation make a difference in Klingon?
<div> </div>
<div>paq Daje'pu' 'e' vISov.</div>
<div>paq Daje'pu'. 'e' vISov.</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
<p><i>The Klingon Dictionary</i> and subsequent sources do not
specify any kind of punctuation requirements. They're entirely
discretionary. These two sentences are effectively identical.<br>
</p>
<p><br>
</p>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:trinity-db67241b-ae25-45a8-834b-e6ca1d45630a-1601289858606@3c-app-webde-bap44">
<div style="font-family: Verdana;font-size: 12.0px;">
<div>2. In this list I've also seen that when we use a period
it's possible not to use "'e'":</div>
<div> </div>
<div>paq Daje'pu'. vISov.</div>
<div> </div>
<div>Without "'e'" it's actually ambiguous: "vISov" can refer to
"paq" or to the whole sentence.</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
<p>Ehhhh.... Technically, this may true, but it would be as awkward
to say this as it is in English to say <i>You bought the book, I
know it. </i>While <b>'e'</b> is indeed a pronoun, I think
it's taking the "may drop a pronoun" rule a little too far. Its
presence is essential.<br>
</p>
<p><br>
</p>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:trinity-db67241b-ae25-45a8-834b-e6ca1d45630a-1601289858606@3c-app-webde-bap44">
<div style="font-family: Verdana;font-size: 12.0px;">
<div> So we can make it clear if we use pronouns, right?:</div>
<div> </div>
<div>paq Daje'pu'. 'oH vISov. (I know the book).</div>
<div>paq Daje'pu'. 'e' vISov. (I know that you have bought the
book).</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
<p>I would probably assume that the <b>'oH</b> does refer to the
book, as you suggest.<br>
</p>
<p><br>
</p>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:trinity-db67241b-ae25-45a8-834b-e6ca1d45630a-1601289858606@3c-app-webde-bap44">
<div style="font-family: Verdana;font-size: 12.0px;">
<div>Pronouns help us to make it clear. But what if the sentence
is not ambiguous? What would be the difference between the
following three possibilities?</div>
<div> </div>
<div>bIlaDtaH 'e' vISov.</div>
<div>bIlaDtaH. 'e' vISov.</div>
<div>bIlaDtaH. vISov.</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
<p>No difference between the first two because punctuation is not a
"rule" in Klingon. The third is awkward as I explained above.<br>
</p>
<p><br>
</p>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:trinity-db67241b-ae25-45a8-834b-e6ca1d45630a-1601289858606@3c-app-webde-bap44">
<div style="font-family: Verdana;font-size: 12.0px;">
<div>In TKD 5.1 we can read pronouns can be used for emphasis or
added clarity. Maybe the difference between the last two
sentences is only that "'e' vISov" is emphatic ("I know
THAT")?</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
<p>No, explicitly using <b>'e'</b> is standard; it doesn't add any
kind of emphasis or clarity. This is a good reason to think it
can't be dropped like other pronouns.<br>
</p>
<p><br>
</p>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:trinity-db67241b-ae25-45a8-834b-e6ca1d45630a-1601289858606@3c-app-webde-bap44">
<div style="font-family: Verdana;font-size: 12.0px;">
<div> Anyway: What is the difference between using a pronoun for
emphasis and using the topic marker "-'e'"? <br>
</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
<p>When you explicitly use a pronoun, you're making it clear that
that's the pronoun you have in mind, or you're speaking
extra-clearly to make sure you've been heard. If I say <b>HoD Duj
vIlegh</b><i> I see the captain's ship</i> and then follow it up
with <b>vIghov,</b> am I saying I recognize the captain or the
ship? I can clarify by explicitly using a pronoun: <b>ghaH vIghov</b><i>
I recognize him/her</i> or <b>'oH vIghov</b><i> I recognize it.</i></p>
<p>When you use <b>-'e',</b> you're giving the noun grammatical
focus: you're giving it an exclusive status. This noun, and no
other, is the one I'm talking about. <b>HoD'e' vIghom</b><i> I
meet the CAPTAIN (not someone else).</i></p>
<p>Note that this is different than when you use <b>-'e'</b> as a
topic marker in pronoun-as-to-be sentences. <b>nuch ghaH Sogh'e'</b><i>
The lieutenant is a coward.</i> When used here, the meaning of <b>-'e'</b>
isn't exclusivity, it's topic: <i>As for the lieutenant, he is a
coward.</i> The topic of the sentence is the lieutenant, and
what do we want to say about the lieutenant? He or she is a
coward.<br>
</p>
<p><br>
</p>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:trinity-db67241b-ae25-45a8-834b-e6ca1d45630a-1601289858606@3c-app-webde-bap44">
<div style="font-family: Verdana;font-size: 12.0px;">
<div>3. And what if the first sentence is intended to be the
subject of the second one?</div>
<div> </div>
<div>paq Daje'pu'. QaQ.</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
<p>I would assume that the elided subject of <b>QaQ</b> is <b>paq.</b>
You cannot have a sentence act as subject. This pair of sentences
cannot mean <i>Your buying the book was good.</i><br>
</p>
<p>Another reason to think that you can't elide <b>'e'</b> as
object.<br>
</p>
<p><br>
</p>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:trinity-db67241b-ae25-45a8-834b-e6ca1d45630a-1601289858606@3c-app-webde-bap44">
<div style="font-family: Verdana;font-size: 12.0px;">
<div>4. And if a sentece is not ambiguous, and my assumption
that pronouns can be used for emphasis is right, how can we
get the meaning "THAT is good" (emphasis) if we have no
pronoun that refers to a sentence and can be used as subject?:</div>
<div> </div>
<div>bIlaDtaH. QaQ.</div>
<div> </div>
<div>So maybe we need a noun with "-'e'"?:</div>
<div> </div>
<div>bIlaDtaH. QaQ ngoDvam'e'.</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
<p>You're on the right track. I'd probably use <b>wanI'</b> for
this: <b>bIlaDtaH. QaQ wanI'vam'e'.</b><i> You are reading. THAT
(and not something else) is good.</i> But these are definitely
two separate sentences in Klingon.</p>
<p><br>
</p>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:trinity-db67241b-ae25-45a8-834b-e6ca1d45630a-1601289858606@3c-app-webde-bap44">
<div style="font-family: Verdana;font-size: 12.0px;">
<div> </div>
<div>
<div>5. Anyway, is this possibility right?:</div>
<div> </div>
<div>QaQ. paq Daje'pu'. (That's good. You have bought the
book).</div>
</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
<p>Not correct, for the reasons above.<br>
</p>
<p>You don't want <b>QaQ</b> here, you want the exclamation <b>maj.</b><br>
</p>
<p><b>maj! paq Daje'pu'.</b><i> Good! You have bought the book.</i><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>