On 7/11/2016 12:18 PM, Steven Boozer wrote:
qunnoq :
Other than that, the first sentence goes :
{nughraj Dun lurDechmeyraj Dun je DIvuvta' 'e' lutul[] HaDwI'pu' 'ej vItul jIH}
But shouldn't there be an {'e'} before the {vItul jIH}? I mean, shouldn't we have the following sentence instead? I think that the second {'e'} before {vItul jIH} has been elided because 1) the two clauses are so short closely related (they have the same verb, if different subjects); and 2) a second {'e'} might make the listener think the sentence-as-object (SAO) referred to was {lutul HaDwI'pu'} and not {DIvuvta'}.
... DIvuvta' 'e' lutul HaDwI'pu' ('ej vItul jIH) The editors hope (and I hope) that we-have-respected-them
I think it's *DIvuvta' ('e' lutul HaDwI'pu' 'ej vItul jIH).* The "second sentence" of the sentence-as-object happens to be a compound sentence, but it's still a sentence. The object of the *vItul jIH* part is still *'e',* but it has been elided because it is was already used in the first sentence of the conjunction, exactly the same way that *yaS vIlegh 'ej vIqIp* elides an object noun in section 6.2.1 of TKD. Always, always, always remember that /all/ sentence-as-object constructions are simply two sentences pushed together; *'e'* and *net* are /not/ conjunctions or linking words. -- SuStel http://trimboli.name