I think that it's better to remember that {'ej} connects clauses, not just sentences. The two parts ending in {-taHvIS} are not relative clauses, but temporal clauses ("while..."), they could also be called converbs ("-ing").

Linguistically speaking, it is the best to remember that {je} connects noun phrases (so not just nouns, but also nouns with relative clauses, nouns with adjectives, pronouns, etc.), and {'ej} connects everything else (though not everything).

We have to remember that MO didn't write TKD for a linguistic audience and that he didn't always use extremely precise unambiguous terminology. So when he says sentences in this case, he might actually mean clauses, or verbs, or verbal phrases. Canon examples show when {'ej} is used.

Note, that {'ej} can also connect 2 relative clauses: (X-bogh 'ej Y-bogh Z = a Z which is X and Y), although I cannot find the example right now.

- André

2016-11-15 13:51 GMT+01:00 mayqel qunenoS <mihkoun@gmail.com>:

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