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