<html><head>
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=utf-8">
</head>
<body>
<div class="moz-cite-prefix">On 11/20/2022 12:22 AM, zrajm via
tlhIngan-Hol wrote:<br>
</div>
<blockquote type="cite" cite="mid:CA+7afY1X4c7SYXeT_gdE8DpYe_URnG9=Bq_h9OfmAmyEwYFBWg@mail.gmail.com">
<div dir="auto">But I started to wonder what's going on in these
phrases. I figure «jIH je» are abbreviations of the longer
phrases «juH qach vIghaj je (jIH)» and «vIraS vIjaH vIneH je
(jIH)». And, maybe, since the pronoun «jIH» is the only thing
verb-like in the sentence, it acts a verb in the shortened
phase, and the «je» therefore comes after it. (Though, with that
interpretation, «jIH je» sounds more like “I am too” to my ears
– but I remember taking about this with someone [HoD Qanqor?
Seqram? Qov?] at a qep'a' at some point and getting pushback. –
So clearly other people think differently.)</div>
</blockquote>
<p>I know I have pushed back against it. <b>je</b> is a conjunction
that follows <i>multiple</i> nouns to conjoin them or a verb to
impart an <i>also</i> adverbial sense. But the <b>jIH</b> people
use in <b>jIH je</b> isn't being used as a verb; it's being used
as a noun, typically as a subject.<br>
</p>
<p><br>
</p>
<blockquote type="cite" cite="mid:CA+7afY1X4c7SYXeT_gdE8DpYe_URnG9=Bq_h9OfmAmyEwYFBWg@mail.gmail.com">
<div dir="auto">
<div dir="auto">
<div dir="auto">But, what if «jIH» isn't a verb at all in that
sentence? (Is there a verb requirement in Klingon sentences?
If a lone adverb can act as a sentence [given adequate
context] then maybe a noun [or a pronoun functioning as a
noun] can too?)</div>
</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
<p>Is there a requirement that all utterances in Klingon be
sentences? No. If I say <b>SSS!</b> at someone in Klingon, it is
meaningful: it means I'm about to give a command or something is
about to happen. But it's not a sentence.<br>
</p>
<p><br>
</p>
<blockquote type="cite" cite="mid:CA+7afY1X4c7SYXeT_gdE8DpYe_URnG9=Bq_h9OfmAmyEwYFBWg@mail.gmail.com">
<div dir="auto">
<div dir="auto">
<div dir="auto"> If that's so, wouldn't it mean that the
sentences «juH qach vIghaj je jIH» and «vIraS vIjaH vIneH
je jIH» should rather be abbreviated as «je jIH» (retaining
the word order of the longer sentence)? </div>
<div dir="auto"><br>
</div>
<div dir="auto">Or maybe the response could even abbreviated
to just «je»? – Though I figure the pronoun is quite likely
to be used for emphasis since that is new information the
responder is wishing to convey.</div>
<div dir="auto"><br>
</div>
<div dir="auto">So, what do you think? Is «je jIH» better than
«jIH je»? And what are you arguments for your belief? – Or
should the phrase be avoided altogether and expressed some
other way? How?</div>
</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
<p>In my opinion, the Klingon equivalent to <i>me too</i> is to
repeat the verb in the first person and add a <b>je.</b> For
example:</p>
<p>Klingon 1: <b>romuluSnganpu' vImuS!</b> <i>I hate Romulans!</i><br>
Klingon 2: <b>vImuS je!</b> <i>Me too!</i></p>
<p>Klingon 1: <b>SIbI' ruchbe'chugh chaH, jImej.</b><i> If they
don't get on with it right now, I'm leaving.<br>
</i>Klingon 2: <b>jImej je!</b> <i>Me too!</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>