<html><head><meta http-equiv="content-type" content="text/html; charset=utf-8"></head><body dir="auto"><div dir="ltr"><meta http-equiv="content-type" content="text/html; charset=utf-8">I like the analysis here. It makes me wonder about related issues.<div><br></div><div>In English, the conjunctions “and” and “but” have identical meaning in terms of grammar and cold logic:</div><div><br></div><div>“I like you, but I don’t like your friend.”<br><br><div dir="ltr">“I like you, and I don’t like your friend.”</div><div dir="ltr"><br></div><div dir="ltr">These are subjectively different, but logically identical. In both cases, I’m telling you two things. </div><div dir="ltr"><br></div><div dir="ltr">1. I like you. </div><div dir="ltr"><br></div><div dir="ltr">2. I don’t like your friend.</div><div dir="ltr"><br></div><div dir="ltr">The thing that “but” introduces is a heightened sense of contrast.</div><div dir="ltr"><br></div><div dir="ltr">In Klingon, the use of {je} as an adverbial (not as a noun conjunction) in canon suggests that it acts as a sort of context anchor to bind together two SEPARATE sentences, NOT connected with a conjunction. It suggests that the sentence with {je} is a kind of appendix to the first sentence. I finished the first sentence, but now, I realize there was something I wanted to add to it. Too late for a conjunction. I’ll create a new parallel sentence and add {je} so you know that it adds information to the previous sentence. Ignore the parallel parts. Pay attention to the new information.</div><div dir="ltr"><br></div><div dir="ltr">So, while the problem example was presented as “Is there a problem with {je} being used with a negative verb?”, there seems to be a second problem with conjoining the two sentences with {‘ach} and also putting {je} at the end. The {je} becomes redundant, which is why the natural suggestion is to omit it.</div><div dir="ltr"><br></div><div dir="ltr">So, what happens if you omit {‘ach} and make them two separate sentences?</div><div dir="ltr"><br></div><div dir="ltr">yaS luHoHpu’. </div><div dir="ltr">be’ luHoHpu’be’ je.</div><div dir="ltr"><br></div><div dir="ltr">Then the problem becomes more obvious:</div><div dir="ltr"><br></div><div dir="ltr">They killed the officer.</div><div dir="ltr">They also didn’t kill the woman.</div><div dir="ltr"><br></div><div dir="ltr">Now, it sounds obviously weird, because the sentences are not sufficiently parallel. SuStel made this point quite well. I’m just making it a little more obvious, and digging into a parallel issue.</div><div dir="ltr"><br></div><div dir="ltr">It’s interesting that {je} used this way to bind two grammatically separate sentences outside of grammatical construction parallels {‘ej}, which binds them grammatically. Meanwhile, we don’t have an outside-of-grammar linking word parallel to {‘ach}.</div><div dir="ltr"><br></div><div dir="ltr">I want a persimmon.</div><div dir="ltr">I want whipped cream, too.</div><div dir="ltr"><br></div><div dir="ltr">I smelled the cupcake.</div><div dir="ltr">I ate the cupcake, too.</div><div dir="ltr"><br></div><div dir="ltr">I liked the persimmon.</div><div dir="ltr">I didn’t like the cupcake, however.</div><div dir="ltr"><br></div><div dir="ltr">In Klingon, the only word for “however” is {‘ach} and it’s a conjunction, not an adverbial. We don’t have an adverbial that offers that sense of contrast that you seem to be seeking. Now is it more obvious why the {je} in your example was redundant with the {‘ach} and why {‘ach} was the word to keep and {je} was the word to omit?</div><div dir="ltr"><br></div><div dir="ltr">That’s the nugget I was after when I started this. I just figured this out. Forgive the wandering to get to this point.</div><div dir="ltr"><br><blockquote type="cite">On Nov 10, 2021, at 9:07 AM, SuStel <sustel@trimboli.name> wrote:<br><br></blockquote></div><blockquote type="cite"><div dir="ltr">
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=UTF-8">
<div class="moz-cite-prefix">On 11/10/2021 7:50 AM, mayqel qunen'oS
wrote:<br>
</div>
<blockquote type="cite" cite="mid:CAP7F2cJ2pHC3_fd0BvqGYzV=eZW53ziPByPXC34VSoWvY9qb4g@mail.gmail.com">
<div dir="auto">yaS luHoHpu', 'a be' luHoHpu'be' je</div>
<div>they killed the officer, but they didn't kill the woman too</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>Seemingly/apparently the English sentence sounds strange; but
is there anything wrong with the Klingon one? Is there something
wrong in using the {je} "too" this way?</div>
</blockquote>
<p>Based on how <b>je</b> is presented in <i>The Klingon
Dictionary,</i> I don't think this is how it works. It appears
to be used when you want to change one element of the OVS part of
a sentence and compare it to the previous sentence.</p>
<p><b>SoHvaD 'uQ wej vIqem.<br>
Dargh vIqem je.<br>
</b><i>Conversational Klingon. </i>The changed element is the
food brought.</p>
<p><b>jIghung.<br>
jIghung je.</b></p>
<p><b>jI'oj.<br>
jI'oj je.<br>
</b><i>Power Klingon.</i> The changed element is the verb.</p>
<p><b>'ej ghIjpu' [tlhIngan may'Duj]<br>
nIteb ghIjpu' je [tlhIngan wo' Degh]<br>
</b><i>Skybox SP1.</i> The changed element is the thing doing the
scaring.</p>
<p><b>ghop luQan tajHommey.<br>
pe'laH je.<br>
</b><i>Skybox SP2.</i> The changed element is the verb.</p>
<p>And so on. So I don't think you'd combine <br>
</p>
<p><b>yaS luHoHpu'</b><br>
and<b><br>
'a be' luHoHpu'be' je</b></p>
<p>in this way. Here, you're changing both the object and the verb.</p>
<p>Just say <b>yaS luHoHpu' 'a be' luHoHpu'be'</b><i> They killed
the officer but they didn't kill the woman.</i> The <b>'a</b><i>
but</i> handles the unexpectedness of the woman not also being
killed. If you wanted to emphasize the exception, you could say
something like <b>yaS luHoHpu' 'a yIntaHbe' 'e' luchaw'</b><i>
They killed the man but they permitted the woman to live.</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>
<span>_______________________________________________</span><br><span>tlhIngan-Hol mailing list</span><br><span>tlhIngan-Hol@lists.kli.org</span><br><span>http://lists.kli.org/listinfo.cgi/tlhingan-hol-kli.org</span><br></div></blockquote></div></div></body></html>