ok, thanks ! On Mon, Jul 11, 2016 at 8:03 PM, SuStel <sustel@trimboli.name> wrote:
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
_______________________________________________ tlhIngan-Hol mailing list tlhIngan-Hol@lists.kli.org http://lists.kli.org/listinfo.cgi/tlhingan-hol-kli.org