<html>
<head>
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=UTF-8">
</head>
<body>
<div class="moz-cite-prefix">On 6/9/2022 9:12 AM, D qunen'oS wrote:<br>
</div>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:CAP7F2cLgpDQqOZJWCTe9Vmf0PYGU=DZCq-RR4Xu7_N1U7Ligow@mail.gmail.com">
<meta http-equiv="content-type" content="text/html; charset=UTF-8">
<div dir="auto">
<div dir="auto">jIH:</div>
<div dir="auto">> HoSbogh Suvqangbogh 'ej matlhbogh vay'<br>
</div>
<div dir="auto">SuStel:</div>
<div dir="auto">> HoSbogh vay', Suvqangbogh, 'ej matlhbogh</div>
<div dir="auto">> someone who is strong, willing to fight,
and loyal</div>
<div dir="auto"><br>
</div>
<div dir="auto">The reason you placed the {vay'} after the
{HoSbogh} (instead of placing it at the end) is for added
clarity, or is it wrong to place it at the end?</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
<p>I'm not sure why everyone has such trouble understanding how this
works. I think it's because they don't quite realize that when
they use a verb apparently without a subject or object, that verb
still has a subject and possibly an object, but they've been
elided.</p>
<p>Let's go back to TKD. "In its fullest form, a Klingon sentence
repeats the noun." The example is <b>yaS legh puq 'ej yaS qIp
puq.</b> Okay.</p>
<p>Here comes the key part, to which I will add my own emphasis: "It
is possible, however, to use pronouns rather than nouns <i><b>in
the second of the joined sentences.</b></i>"</p>
<p>A pronoun wants an antecedent. Not a postcedent. A pronoun wants
to refer back to a noun that has already been stated.</p>
<p>So TKD gives us the example <b>yaS legh puq 'ej ghaH qIp ghaH.</b>
The <b>ghaH</b>'s refer to the previous object and subject, and
what's more, the object pronoun refers to the previous object noun
and the subject pronoun refers to the previous subject noun. This
sentence implies that the child hits the officer, not that the
officer hits the child.</p>
<p>Then we're told that "if the context is clear, even the pronoun
may be left out." TKD's example doesn't follow directly on with
the child hitting the officer example, so let's look at what that
would be: <b>yaS legh puq 'ej qIp.</b> This still implies that
the child hits the officer, not that the officer hits the child.
Without an explicit reference, we have no reason to believe that
object and subject have changed from the first part.</p>
<p>So how come we don't say <b>yaS legh 'ej qIp puq?</b> What's the
subject of <b>legh?</b> It's an elided <b>ghaH.</b> But why
would you put the pronoun <i>before</i> its antecedent? That
would be like saying, in English, <i>She sees the officer and the
child hits him.</i> Or perhaps to mirror the effect in English
better we could switch the use of pronouns: <i>The officer sees
her and he hits the child.</i> Why oh why would you ever want to
do this?</p>
<p>I mean, I get it: you're thinking of <b>legh 'ej qIp</b> as a
kind of compound verb. Kind of like <i>The child [sees and hits]
the officer.</i> And we have a couple of canonical examples of
doing things like that. But it's not anywhere near the norm. The
norm is to put any subject or object on the first verb you can,
then switch to pronouns and possibly elide those pronouns on
subsequent verbs that continue to use the same subject and object.</p>
<p>So no, I didn't put the <b>vay'</b> after the first verb for
added clarity or because it is wrong to put it at the end. I put
it after the first verb because that is the most normal thing to
do. To put <b>vay'</b> at the end is to ask your audience to
wonder who's doing all these things until you finally get around
to naming your subject many words later.<br>
</p>
<p><br>
</p>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:CAP7F2cLgpDQqOZJWCTe9Vmf0PYGU=DZCq-RR4Xu7_N1U7Ligow@mail.gmail.com">
<div dir="auto">
<div dir="auto">jIH:</div>
<div dir="auto">> Quchbogh Do'bogh vay' 'ej quvmoHlu'bogh<br>
</div>
<div dir="auto">SuStel:</div>
<div dir="auto">> The second one doesn't work like this
because </div>
<div dir="auto">> vay' is the subject of Quchbogh and Do'bogh
but </div>
<div dir="auto">> not of quvmoHlu'bogh. You have to split
this </div>
<div dir="auto">> into multiple phrases.</div>
<div dir="auto">> Quchbogh vay' 'ej Do'bogh vIlegh. ghaH
quvmoHlu' je.</div>
<div dir="auto">> I see someone who is happy and fortunate. </div>
<div dir="auto">> He/she is also honored.</div>
<div dir="auto"><br>
</div>
<div dir="auto">I'm afraid I don't understand this.</div>
<div dir="auto"><br>
</div>
<div dir="auto">{Quchbogh Do'bogh vay' 'ej quvmoHlu'bogh}<br>
</div>
<div dir="auto"><br>
</div>
<div dir="auto">Can't this be understood as "someone who is
happy, who is fortunate, and (he) is honored"?</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
<p><b>vay'</b> has been the subject all along. Now you're asking
someone to realize that what was the subject for the previous two
verbs has become the object of the last verb, even though you
don't actually <i>say</i> the word. It is, again, not actually
ungrammatical, but it is not the normal way of doing things.
Pronouns referring to antecedents playing a specific role don't
just change roles without you noting this somehow. If you want to
make a word change its role, the least courtesy you can show it is
to restate it.<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>