On 3/26/2019 10:26 AM, mayqel qunen'oS wrote:
jIH:
bIvoqbe', 'ej muSuj you don't believe, and it (this fact) disturbs me SuStel: What you're really doing is bIvoqbe' 'ej muSuj 'e'. This is, of course, not allowed. I understand your reasoning, and it convinces me.
But doesn't this reasoning mean that the {tlhIngan maH! taHjaj!}, is wrong too ? Isn't the {tlhIngan maH! taHjaj!}, actually {tlhIngan maH! taHjaj 'e'!} ?
I know that it is blasphemous to dare and question something which has been celebrated as a feat of linguistic ingenuity.. I really do. But, - holy sith ! -, I'm sure as hell, that if a mere mortal had come up with this phrase, he would have been executed on the spot.
*tlhIngan maH taHjaj* is (a) a slogan, and (b) not canonical. As a slogan, it's not going to be careful to ensure everyone knows what the antecedent of its elided pronouns are. As a non-canonical sentence, it's not a data point in what can and cannot be said. Now, I have no doubt that Okrand will canonize *tlhIngan maH taHjaj* the first chance he gets, if he hasn't already and I don't remember. There's nothing ungrammatical about it; as with your sentence, you can assume the subject of *taHjaj* is an elided noun, like *ghu'vam* or something. I suspect it doesn't matter in the same way that the subject of *SIS* doesn't matter. Everybody keeps acting like I'm passing down an an edict, but I'm not. You asked whether you could say *bIvoqbe' 'ej muSuj,* and I said it's not ungrammatical. I questioned whether you really were eliding a *ngoDvam* or if you were really just eliding an *'e'* and not admitting it to yourself. And I still think *muSuj voqbe'ghachlIj* is the best translation of the line. -- SuStel http://trimboli.name