On 6/10/2017 1:12 PM, ghunchu'wI' 'utlh wrote:
On Jun 9, 2017, at 3:03 PM, SuStel <sustel@trimboli.name> wrote:

For instance, Captain Klaa's utterance reH DIvI' Duj vISuv vIneH I've always wanted to fight a Federation ship becomes perfectly reasonable without any special grammatical exceptions if we simply look at it as reH [DIvI' Duj vISuv vIneH], where the brackets delineate a sentence, not just a "construction."

It is already an exception, as {neH} does not use the object {'e'}. It has occasionally been suggested that the "previous sentence" is the actual object of {neH}. I think that is no more of a stretch than what you propose.

neH is an exception that is given to us as canon. The previous sentence directly being the object of the latter sentence is our conjecture invented purely to explain the adverbial in Klaa's line.


I do see the distinction between generalizing and making exceptions. I'm just not sure it is worth generalizing "all SAO constructions are sentences" in order to handle the Klaa example, when a small codicil on {neH} works to explain both the placement of {reH} and the lack of {'e'}.

An SAO is a "complex sentence." Okrand has called them "sentences." They're sentences.

And don't presume to tell me my motivations. I'm not interested in making up rules to explain one line. The placement of adverbials, syntactic nouns, and other expressions on SAOs comes up again and again when trying to use Klingon, and knowing whether SAOs are able to do the things other sentences can do is essential.

I think it is uncontroversial to call complex sentences made with conjunctions "sentences". Do we have any examples of such sentences where an adverbial or subordinate clause applies to the entire thing, or do they attach to only one main verb? The comparison isn't perfectly applicable to a SAO, but it could be instructive.

Complex sentences are not just compound sentences.

6. Syntax
    6.2. Complex sentences
        6.2.1. Compound sentences
        6.2.2. Subordinate clauses
        6.2.3. Relative clauses
        6.2.4. Purpose clauses
        6.2.5. Sentences as objects

Sentences as object are complex sentences. Hence they are sentences.

Comparatives and superlatives are not described as complex sentences in TKD. But neither are they called sentences. They are called constructions and formulas, but not sentences. Do you claim they are not sentences? They can even have "header" words put on them, as shown in our ever-useful qIbDaq SuvwI''e' SoH Dun law' Hoch Dun puS. We also have adverbials: reH latlh qabDaq qul tuj law' Hoch tuj puS. They're sentences.

TKD calls "to be" constructions sentences in TKD, even though they do not appear under either "basic sentences" or "complex sentences."

Compound sentences are described thus in TKD: "Two sentences may be joined together to form a longer compound sentence. Both sentences must be able to stand alone as properly formed sentences." Now see this from KGT: juDev 'ej Dujvam ra'wI' DagheS 'e' vItlhob I ask you to lead us as commander of this ship. In order for this canonical utterance to be legal according to TKD, juDev and Dujvam ra'wI' DagheS 'e' vItlhob must both be "properly formed sentences." Thus, the SAO is a properly formed sentence. There are more of these basic-sentence-conunction-SAOs in paq'batlh. THEY - ARE - SENTENCES.

We have an example of what you asked for in paq'batlh as well: an adverbial that applies to an entire SAO rather than just one of its component sentences.

ghIq pum 'e' mev
    bIQtIq Doq legh
    bIQtIq nguvmoH 'Iw

Then he sees bright red
    At the end of his fall
    It is a river, blood-colored.

This isn't to be interpreted he stops that he then falls; it means then, he stops falling.

BECAUSE A SENTENCE-AS-OBJECT CONSTRUCTION IS A SENTENCE.

Okrand doesn't go out of his way to avoid calling SAOs (and comparatives and superlatives) sentences. He just didn't happen to use the word in his brief paragraphs about them in TKD. He casually calls them sentences elsewhere, as if it's perfectly obvious that everyone can tell they are sentences, because it IS perfectly obvious.

-- 
SuStel
http://trimboli.name