<html>
<head>
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=UTF-8">
</head>
<body>
<div class="moz-cite-prefix">On 10/15/2021 1:19 PM, nIqolay Q wrote:<br>
</div>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:CAG84SOtyMOnEicVUd_EjdPG8QXm+=gg2+=H_RZChKgo5aJzCYg@mail.gmail.com">
<meta http-equiv="content-type" content="text/html; charset=UTF-8">
<div dir="ltr">
<div class="gmail_quote">
<div dir="ltr" class="gmail_attr">On Fri, Oct 15, 2021 at 9:05
AM SuStel <<a href="mailto:sustel@trimboli.name"
moz-do-not-send="true" class="moz-txt-link-freetext">sustel@trimboli.name</a>>
wrote:<br>
</div>
<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px
0.8ex;border-left:1px solid
rgb(204,204,204);padding-left:1ex">
<div><span class="gmail_default"
style="font-family:arial,helvetica,sans-serif"></span>I
don't think it works. This says <i>Aliens and REMANS (as
opposed to anyone else) use it.</i> <b>-'e'</b> makes a
subject or object exclusive participants in the verb, </div>
</blockquote>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>
<div style="font-family:arial,helvetica,sans-serif"
class="gmail_default">I don't think this is necessarily
true. which is why I suggested it. The description in TKD
is just</div>
<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px
0.8ex;border-left:1px solid
rgb(204,204,204);padding-left:1ex">This suffix emphasizes
that the noun to which it is attached is the topic of the
sentence. In English, this is frequently accomplished by
stressing the noun (saying it emphatically) or by special
syntactic constructions. <br>
</blockquote>
<div style="font-family:arial,helvetica,sans-serif"
class="gmail_default">It says nothing explicit that <b>-'e'</b>
is <i>only</i> used in the sense of "X and nothing else".</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
<p>I didn't say "and nothing else"; I said "as opposed to anyone
else."<br>
</p>
<p><br>
</p>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:CAG84SOtyMOnEicVUd_EjdPG8QXm+=gg2+=H_RZChKgo5aJzCYg@mail.gmail.com">
<div dir="ltr">
<div class="gmail_quote">
<div>
<div style="font-family:arial,helvetica,sans-serif"
class="gmail_default"><br>
</div>
<div style="font-family:arial,helvetica,sans-serif"
class="gmail_default">Some of the glosses given in TKD do
include an exclusive meaning:</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="font-family:arial,helvetica,sans-serif"
class="gmail_default"> {lujpu' jIH'e'} <I, and
only I, have failed.> <br>
<It is I who has failed.><br>
<br>
{De''e' vItlhapnISpu'} <I needed to get the
INFORMATION.><br>
<It was the information
(and not<br>
something else) that I
needed.> </div>
</blockquote>
<div style="font-family:arial,helvetica,sans-serif"
class="gmail_default">But there are also non-exclusive
glosses listed. "I needed to get the INFORMATION" doesn't
necessarily imply that I didn't need anything else, only
that I'm emphasizing the information as something I need.</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
<p>The meaning of the capital letters is explained in the very next
line: <i>It was the information (and not something else) that I
needed.</i><br>
</p>
<p><br>
</p>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:CAG84SOtyMOnEicVUd_EjdPG8QXm+=gg2+=H_RZChKgo5aJzCYg@mail.gmail.com">
<div dir="ltr">
<div class="gmail_quote">
<div>
<div style="font-family:arial,helvetica,sans-serif"
class="gmail_default"> If I needed anything else, it's not
important to this sentence. Showing contrast ("X and not
Y") is a common use of emphasis, and one that's easy to
convey in a quick gloss, so I suspect that's why some of
the examples use a "X and not something else" gloss, but I
don't see a particular reason to assume that <b>-'e'</b>
<i>exclusively</i> means "X and nothing else". Other
examples:</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
<p>I was also careful to say that the exclusivity interpretation
applied when <b>-'e'</b> was on a subject or object. When <b>-'e'</b>
is on a subject or object outside of a relative clause, Okrand
always uses it to mean "X and nothing else" or "X instead of
something else."</p>
<p>When <b>-'e'</b> is used in a copula, on the other hand, it has
the meaning of topic. It marks what the sentence is all about, not
exclusivity. This is also demonstrated in the examples:</p>
<p><b>puqpu' chaH qama'pu''e'</b> and <b>pa'DajDaq ghaHtaH la''e'</b><i>
</i>are said to be translatable as <i>As for the prisoners, they
are children</i> and <i>As for the commander, he is in his
quarters.</i> We don't usually talk like that in English, so <i>The
prisoners are children</i> and <i>The commander is in his
quarters </i>are simpler translations, but in the Klingon the
topic-ness of those final nouns remains.<br>
</p>
<p><br>
</p>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:CAG84SOtyMOnEicVUd_EjdPG8QXm+=gg2+=H_RZChKgo5aJzCYg@mail.gmail.com">
<div dir="ltr">
<div class="gmail_quote">
<div><b><span class="gmail_default"
style="font-family:arial,helvetica,sans-serif"></span>DaHjaj
SuvwI''e' jIH</b> (TKW) <span class="gmail_default"
style="font-family:arial,helvetica,sans-serif"></span><i>"Today
I am a warrior." </i><br>
The person saying this is presumably still other things (a
Klingon, a person, a son/daughter, etc.), but the focus of
this sentence is the fact that they're a warrior. The other
things they are aren't relevant for the sentence or the
context at hand.<br>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
<p>Copula. <b>-'e'</b> marks the topic. It's in a nonstandard
syntax, but it's still basically saying, <i>As for warriors, that
is me.</i><br>
</p>
<p><br>
</p>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:CAG84SOtyMOnEicVUd_EjdPG8QXm+=gg2+=H_RZChKgo5aJzCYg@mail.gmail.com">
<div dir="ltr">
<div class="gmail_quote">
<div><b>qIbDaq SuvwI''e' SoH Dun law' Hoch Dun puS</b> (ST5) <span
class="gmail_default"
style="font-family:arial,helvetica,sans-serif"></span><i>"You
would be the greatest warrior in the galaxy."</i><br>
The grammar in this one is a little weird, since we haven't
seen this kind of construction elsewhere, but there's no
obvious contrastive meaning here. It's still possible for
Klaa to be the best or most of some other category besides
"warrior"; it's just that Vixis is talking about warriors in
this sentence. "As for warriors, you would be the greatest
in the galaxy."<br>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
<p>Not a subject or object. It marks a topic, not exclusivity.<br>
</p>
<p><br>
</p>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:CAG84SOtyMOnEicVUd_EjdPG8QXm+=gg2+=H_RZChKgo5aJzCYg@mail.gmail.com">
<div dir="ltr">
<div class="gmail_quote">
<div><b>reH Hegh yoHwI'pu''e'</b> (TKW) <span
class="gmail_default"
style="font-family:arial,helvetica,sans-serif"></span><i>"Always
it is the brave ones who die."</i><br>
The emphasis is on brave ones dying, but obviously the
sentence can't mean "The brave ones (and no one else) always
die." Even cowards gotta go sometime.<br>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
<p>But <b>-'e'</b> doesn't mean ONLY the brave ones all the time.
That would be <b>neH.</b> <b>-'e'</b> marks that the noun is
exclusive to the sentiment being expressed, not that the
exclusivity is generally true for all reality. <i>Always the
brave ones die, as opposed to anyone else. </i>Others may die,
but only the brave ones die <i>always.</i><br>
</p>
<p><br>
</p>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:CAG84SOtyMOnEicVUd_EjdPG8QXm+=gg2+=H_RZChKgo5aJzCYg@mail.gmail.com">
<div dir="ltr">
<div class="gmail_quote">
<div>There's also the use of <span class="gmail_default"
style="font-family:arial,helvetica,sans-serif"></span><b>-'e'</b>
with copula sentences, which are glossed in TKD with "As for
the X...", which doesn't imply exclusiveness.</div>
</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
<p>No, that's topic. <b>-'e'</b> has multiple functions in
different contexts. Based on all examples,</p>
<p><b>-'e'</b> on subjects or objects outside of relative clauses
implies exclusivity (focus).</p>
<p><b>-'e' </b>in a relative clause implies head-nounness.</p>
<p><b>-'e'</b> in copulas or in a noun phrase hanging out in the
beginning of a sentence implies topic.</p>
<p><br>
</p>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:CAG84SOtyMOnEicVUd_EjdPG8QXm+=gg2+=H_RZChKgo5aJzCYg@mail.gmail.com">
<div dir="ltr">
<div class="gmail_quote">
<div> "As for the commander, he is in his quarters" doesn't
rule out the possibility of others being in the commander's
quarters. It just means that we're talking about the
commander.</div>
</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
<p>I never said it does.<br>
</p>
<p><br>
</p>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:CAG84SOtyMOnEicVUd_EjdPG8QXm+=gg2+=H_RZChKgo5aJzCYg@mail.gmail.com">
<div dir="ltr">
<div class="gmail_quote">
<div>
<div style="font-family:arial,helvetica,sans-serif"
class="gmail_default">Another longer quote from KGT (p.
23):</div>
<div style="font-family:arial,helvetica,sans-serif"
class="gmail_default">
<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px
0.8ex;border-left:1px solid
rgb(204,204,204);padding-left:1ex">The Morskan dialect,
for example, does not put the suffix {-'e'} on the
subject noun in a sentence translated with "to be" in
Federation Standard (though the suffix is not missing in
other contexts where it is used to focus attention on
one noun rather than another within the sentence).
Compare:<br>
Morskan: {tera'ngan gha qama'.} ("The prisoner is a
Terran.")<br>
Standard: {tera'ngan ghaH qama''e'} ({tera'ngan,}
"Terran"; {ghaH,} "he, she"; {qama',} "prisoner")<br>
Morskan: {bIghha'Daq ghata qama'.} ("The prisoner
is in the prison.")<br>
Standard: {bIghHa'Daq ghaHtaH qama''e'.}
({bIghHa'Daq,} "in the prison"; {-taH,} "continuous")<br>
[...]<br>
{-'e'} added to {qama'} in the Morskan sentences would
have its usual focusing function (the sentences would
mean something like "It's the prisoner who's a Terran"
and "It's the prisoner who's in the prison,"
respectively), the same as it would have in sentences of
other types. This grammatical device is not available to
speakers of {ta' Hol} who, to speak grammatically, must
use {-'e'} in sentences of this type whether wishing to
call extra attention to the subject noun or not.<br>
</blockquote>
<br>
Nothing here implies that <b>-'e' </b>means "X and
nothing else",</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
<p>I never said it does.<br>
</p>
<p><br>
</p>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:CAG84SOtyMOnEicVUd_EjdPG8QXm+=gg2+=H_RZChKgo5aJzCYg@mail.gmail.com">
<div dir="ltr">
<div class="gmail_quote">
<div>
<div style="font-family:arial,helvetica,sans-serif"
class="gmail_default"> or that the subject is an exclusive
participant in the verb, only that other possible subjects
are less relevant to the sentence.<br>
</div>
</div>
<div><br>
Some uses of <span class="gmail_default"
style="font-family:arial,helvetica,sans-serif"></span><b>-'e'</b>
do have a clear "X and not something else" meaning. (<span
class="gmail_default"
style="font-family:arial,helvetica,sans-serif"></span><b>qun
qon charghwI'pu''e'</b> (TKW)<span class="gmail_default"
style="font-family:arial,helvetica,sans-serif"></span><i>
"History is written by the victors.</i><i>"</i> is
probably intended to mean "Victors (and nobody else) records
history.") But I think this determination has to be based on
context, and isn't inherent to the <span
class="gmail_default"
style="font-family:arial,helvetica,sans-serif"></span><b>-'e'</b>
suffix.</div>
</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
<p>Based on all our examples, the contexts appears to be the three
situations I listed above. And I was careful to specify that I was
only talking about the first one.</p>
<p><b>lulo' novpu' rIymuSnganpu''e' je.</b></p>
<p><b>-'e'</b> used on a subject not in a relative clause. Aliens
use it, and Remans (as opposed to others) also use it. The two
concepts don't go together. If you're expressing something about
Remans but not expressing it about others <b>(rIymuSnganpu''e'),</b>
then you can't also express it about aliens in general <b>(novpu').</b><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>