On Fri, 24 Jun 2022 at 14:36, D qunen'oS <mihkoun@gmail.com> wrote:
De'vID:
It's not elided. Both of the conjoined nouns are written. {tlhIH(1), SuvwI'pu' Hem,} "You, proud warriors," {boghIjlu''a'?} "Are you afraid?" {tlhIH(2) je, qanra' puqloD,} "And you, sons of Kahnrah,"
Ok, I can understand this.
But again, the nouns being conjoined aren't in the same sentence. They're at different sentences.
They *are* in the same sentence. Ignoring the appositives, that sentence is {tlhIH tlhIH je}, a vocative (an exclamation). A: {qatlh Sutamchu'?} "Why are you all silent?" B1: {tlhIH(1), SuvwI'pu' Hem,} "You, proud warriors," C: {boghIjlu''a'?} "Are you afraid?" B2: {tlhIH(2) je, qanra' puqloD,} "And you, sons of Kahnrah," D: {pejatlh!} "Speak up!" There are four sentences here: A, B, C, and D. Sentence B gets interrupted by sentence C, and then resumes. There is no new grammar here. I repeat: there is no new grammar here. The fact that sometimes, when a person is speaking, they'll interrupt something they're saying mid-sentence, say something else, and then resume the original sentence, is not something that can or needs to be formulated into a rule of grammar. It's just a feature of any language. You can do this in English, or in Greek, but you won't find a rule in a grammar textbook book for English or Greek telling you how to do this. So, (if I understand this correctly) I can say to a singer: {SoH bItlhIb,
bIbomtaHvIS, qoghDu'wIj vIpoSnISmoH}, and then say to another singer {SoH je, bIbomtaHvIS, vIghro'mey HoH ghoghlIj}.
The thing I'm wondering though is whether for this to work, on the first sentence we would necessarily need to write the {SoH}, or whether we would only need the second one.
If you're wondering this, then you haven't understood what's going on. The entire point is that there is no new grammar here. {je} still conjoins two (or more) nouns by coming at the end. -- De'vID