Ah yes, completely right with the cat & BoP example. I would say the sentences in just the same way. I forgot that I was talking about {je} there, so I think I got confused in my last message a bit. These are simply "big" nouns, more or less (Noun Phrases or NPs), so {je} connects them. - André 2016-11-15 17:35 GMT+01:00 mayqel qunenoS <mihkoun@gmail.com>:
I see..
So, in order to say "the cat that I gave you and the bird of prey that I sent you", I will say:
{vIghro' Danobbogh toQ DangeHbogh je}
And if I want to say "the cat that I gave you and the bird of prey that I sent you, are noisy", I will write:
{chuS vIghro' Danobbogh toQ DangeHbogh je}
Would you agree with the above ?
qunnoH ghoghwIj HablI'vo' vIngeHta'
On 15 Nov 2016 6:22 pm, "André Müller" <esperantist@gmail.com> wrote:
That might have been the example, yes.
A relative clause is formed with {-bogh} in Klingon, so {paq vIlaDlI'bogh} is the book that I am reading. So your sentence is an example of a noun {Dargh} with two relativized verbs attached to it.
- André
2016-11-15 16:56 GMT+01:00 mayqel qunenoS <mihkoun@gmail.com>:
andre muller:
nouns with relative clauses
What is a "noun with relative clause" ? Could you write an example ?
andre muller:
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.
Perhaps it is {SuDbogh Dargh 'ej wovbogh}, but I don't remember the source..
qunnoH jan puqloD
On Tue, Nov 15, 2016 at 4:42 PM, André Müller <esperantist@gmail.com> wrote:
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
_______________________________________________ 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
_______________________________________________ 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