<html><head>
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=utf-8">
</head>
<body>
<div class="moz-cite-prefix">On 4/13/2023 3:49 AM, Lieven L. Litaer
via tlhIngan-Hol wrote:<br>
</div>
<blockquote type="cite" cite="mid:499258ab-02f0-860c-01b8-bff076c8d489@gmx.de">I just
noticed that a meaning of a sentence can change depending on
<br>
where an adverb is placed. I'm not sure if there is a rule
forbidding,
<br>
or if there are even examples for that.
<br>
<br>
See this:
<br>
{not bIQong 'e' vISov.}
<br>
"I know that you never sleep"
<br>
vs.
<br>
{bIQong not 'e' vISov.}
<br>
"I never knew that you sleep."
<br>
<br>
Can I do that?
<br>
<br>
TKD 6.7 (add) says that "the adverbial precedes the
object-verb-noun
<br>
construction". In the above example, {'e'} is the object of the
verb
<br>
{Sov}, so I think it's correct. – Or did I forget something?
<br>
<br>
I somehow feel there is a canon example for this (x not 'e'), but
I just
<br>
can't remember.
<br>
</blockquote>
<p>There is, but we didn't get it until <i>paq'batlh.</i></p>
<p>We had long ago worked out that the <b>'e' reH</b> SkyBox
example was problematical. We simply reasoned it out: if <b>'e'</b>
is always the object, and if adverbials come before the object,
then when modifying a verb whose object is <b>'e',</b> the
adverbial should come before the <b>'e'.</b> And since <b>'e'</b>
is only ever used in sentence-as-object constructions, that means
that the correct form, at least according to all the rules we've
been given, is <b>S1 A 'e' V2,</b> where S1 is the first
sentence, A is the adverbial, and V2 is the verb of the second
sentence.</p>
<p>Then we got the SkyBox example, and that didn't conform to our
idea. But that sentence has other grammatical errors as well. I
believe that when Okrand wrote the SkyBox example, this was when
he was still not very practiced at translating into Klingon, and
he was making a common newbie mistake: he was thinking of <b>'e'</b>
as a conjunction between two sentences, must the way that <i>that</i>
is the corresponding conjunction in English. He was imagining <b>S1
'e' S2.</b> And if you imagine <b>'e'</b> as a conjunction,
naturally you're going to imagine the adverbial of S2 is part of
S2.</p>
<p>We also had <b>reH DIvI' Duj vISuv vIneH</b> from <i>Star Trek
V,</i> and this is even more problematical, since it <i>looks</i>
like it's saying <i>I wanted I fight a Federation ship forever: </i>that
is, the <i>forever</i> is modifying the fighting, not the
wanting. Either that, or the adverbial is being applied to the
sentence-as-construction as a whole: <b>A (S1 S2).</b> And of
course, it's a <b>neH</b> sentence-as-object construction:
without an <b>'e',</b> does that change the rules? Are they
special with regard to adverbials?</p>
<p>So we had no clear canonical example, and we only had the logic
of the rules. Then we got <i>paq'batlh,</i> and I <i>think</i>
that's when we got our first unambiguous examples.</p>
<p><b>SuvwI' DameH puqloDwI'<br>
vIghojHa'moH DaH 'e' vItlhoj<br>
bIQ lungaS 'aDDu'Daj</b></p>
<p><i>I see now, I have failed<br>
To raise my son a man.<br>
Water flows through his veins.</i></p>
<p>The <b>DaH</b> is definitely meant to modify <b>tlhoj.</b></p>
<p>We also have examples in <i>paq'batlh</i> of adverbials that are
definitely meant to modify the first verb:</p>
<p><b>tugh Hegh 'e' Sov moratlh<br>
</b><i>Morath felt the end was near.</i></p>
<p>The <b>tugh</b> is certainly meant to modify <b>Hegh.</b></p>
<p>So we do have canonical examples of <b>S1 A 'e' V2,</b> but we
didn't have them until much later than you were thinking.<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>