On 3/25/2019 9:15 AM, Daniel Dadap wrote:
On Mar 25, 2019, at 07:48, SuStel <sustel@trimboli.name <mailto:sustel@trimboli.name>> wrote:
On 3/25/2019 5:02 AM, mayqel qunen'oS wrote:
SuStel:
However, you never established the antecedent in the first place
What is an antecedent ?
In this context, an antecedent is a word which that appears before /(ante) /a pronoun, to which the pronouns refers. /I see the captain. He seems fine./ In that sentence, /the //captain/ is the antecedent of the pronoun /he./
Is it established that Klingon pronouns can’t be used without an antecedent?
No, but I didn't say he can't say his sentence because Klingon pronouns can't be used without an antecedent. Indeed, I didn't say he can't say that sentence. He was pushing the boundary of what was acceptable, because he claimed his proposed pronoun *'oH* was referring to an antecedent *ngoDvam* that wasn't present in the sentence, but what he was doing was functionally equivalent to using *'e'* as a subject, which definitely /isn't/ allowed. If you have to say it this way, just state *ngoDvam* outright and you'll have a much stronger sentence. -- SuStel http://trimboli.name