hmm.. I see..

so, at the sentence {jIyIttaHvIS 'ej jISoptaHvIS, vIghro' vIgho'}, the {'ej} *does* connect two sentences:

sentence one: {jIyIt}
sentence two: {jISop}

the {-taHvIS} just creates relative clauses out of these sentences. right ?

qunnoH
ghoghwIj HablI'vo' vIngeHta'

On 15 Nov 2016 1:29 pm, "De'vID" <de.vid.jonpin@gmail.com> wrote:

On 15 November 2016 at 12:18, mayqel qunenoS <mihkoun@gmail.com> wrote:
> De'vID;
>> Note the part that says {lengtaHvIS... 'ej charghtaSvIS}.
>
> maj. this answers my question, and shows that the {'ej} is indeed able
> to join two "parts of a sentence" (I don't know how else to call
> them).

Subordinate clauses. See TKD 6.2.2.

> and -correct me if I'm wrong-, according to this canon example we
> could write too: {qaleghmeH 'ej qa'uchmeH, jIlengta'} for "in order to
> see you and in order to hold you, I traveled". Also, we could write
> {qaleghDI' 'ej qa'uchDI' jIQuchchoH} for "as soon as I saw you and as
> soon as I held you, I became happy"

Correct.

> however, this does contradict the "strict description" of {'ej}, that
> "it is used to join sentences". Unless of course, what I've been
> calling "parts of a sentence" are considered to be true sentences..

You're thinking about this the wrong way.

{'ej} *is* joining two sentence: {loghDaq leng} and {qo'mey Sar chargh}.

By applying {-taHvIS} to the verb of a sentence, it becomes a
subordinate clause. And what's the verb of the compound sentence
{loghDaq leng 'ej qo'mey Sar chargh}? It has two verbs: {leng} and
{chargh}.

There's no contradiction here. There's an unstated (and I think pretty
intuitive) rule that if a sentence is compound, the verb suffixes
apply to all the relevant verbs.

--
De'vID
_______________________________________________
tlhIngan-Hol mailing list
tlhIngan-Hol@lists.kli.org
http://lists.kli.org/listinfo.cgi/tlhingan-hol-kli.org

_______________________________________________
tlhIngan-Hol mailing list
tlhIngan-Hol@lists.kli.org
http://lists.kli.org/listinfo.cgi/tlhingan-hol-kli.org