Before I ask my main question, I wanted to confirm my understanding of something: My understanding of the behavior of {neH} with a sentence as object has always been that there is an implicit {'e'} in there, and it isn’t wrong to make it explicit. For example, to say “they want the children to read those books”, one would typically say: {paqmeyvetlh laD puqpu' luneH} But it wouldn’t be wrong to say: {paqmeyvetlh laD puqpu' 'e' luneH} Is my understanding accurate? Or does {neH} really not take the pronoun {'e'} as an object, not even invisibly? Or do we just not know enough to be certain one way or another? Regardless of the answer to the above, I was thinking recently about {neH} with SAO and an indefinite subject. Which of these is the right way to say “it is wanted that the children read those books”? {paqmeyvetlh laD puqpu' net neH} {paqmeyvetlh laD puqpu' neHlu'} {paqmeyvetlh laD puqpu' 'e' neHlu'} (Or none of the above because you’re supposed to say something else, or some combination of multiple of the above…)
On 12/8/2018 1:13 PM, Daniel Dadap wrote:
Before I ask my main question, I wanted to confirm my understanding of something:
My understanding of the behavior of {neH} with a sentence as object has always been that there is an implicit {'e'} in there, and it isn’t wrong to make it explicit. For example, to say “they want the children to read those books”, one would typically say:
{paqmeyvetlh laD puqpu' luneH}
But it wouldn’t be wrong to say:
{paqmeyvetlh laD puqpu' 'e' luneH}
Is my understanding accurate? Or does {neH} really not take the pronoun {'e'} as an object, not even invisibly? Or do we just not know enough to be certain one way or another?
The rules say "when the verb of the second sentence is neH want, neither *'e'* nor *net* is used," not that the pronoun is invisible or implicit. We're not given a great deal of theory behind how it works, so it's possible there's something more complex going on, but until we have information to the contrary, you should assume it is what it says it is. Adding *'e'* or *net* would be wrong. (The sole known exception is not a good data point, as it involves one Klingon using another Klingon's sentence as the first sentence in a sentence-as-object construction. It may be that in such a case not having /something/ there is too much. We don't know how this exception works, so it's dangerous to base our understanding on it.
Regardless of the answer to the above, I was thinking recently about {neH} with SAO and an indefinite subject. Which of these is the right way to say “it is wanted that the children read those books”?
{paqmeyvetlh laD puqpu' net neH} {paqmeyvetlh laD puqpu' neHlu'} {paqmeyvetlh laD puqpu' 'e' neHlu'}
The second one. *paqmeyvetlh laD puqpu' neHlu'*/One wants the children to read those books./ / / -- SuStel http://trimboli.name
On Dec 8, 2018, at 12:28 PM, SuStel <sustel@trimboli.name> wrote:
On 12/8/2018 1:13 PM, Daniel Dadap wrote:
Before I ask my main question, I wanted to confirm my understanding of something:
My understanding of the behavior of {neH} with a sentence as object has always been that there is an implicit {'e'} in there, and it isn’t wrong to make it explicit. For example, to say “they want the children to read those books”, one would typically say:
{paqmeyvetlh laD puqpu' luneH}
But it wouldn’t be wrong to say:
{paqmeyvetlh laD puqpu' 'e' luneH}
Is my understanding accurate? Or does {neH} really not take the pronoun {'e'} as an object, not even invisibly? Or do we just not know enough to be certain one way or another? The rules say "when the verb of the second sentence is neH want, neither 'e' nor net is used," not that the pronoun is invisible or implicit. We're not given a great deal of theory behind how it works, so it's possible there's something more complex going on, but until we have information to the contrary, you should assume it is what it says it is. Adding 'e' or net would be wrong.
Oh. Yeah, there it is in black and white on page 66 of TKD. Sorry, I really should try opening a book before asking questions like that on the list.
(The sole known exception is not a good data point, as it involves one Klingon using another Klingon's sentence as the first sentence in a sentence-as-object construction. It may be that in such a case not having something there is too much. We don't know how this exception works, so it's dangerous to base our understanding on it.
Out of curiosity, do you mind quoting that exception?
Regardless of the answer to the above, I was thinking recently about {neH} with SAO and an indefinite subject. Which of these is the right way to say “it is wanted that the children read those books”?
{paqmeyvetlh laD puqpu' net neH} {paqmeyvetlh laD puqpu' neHlu'} {paqmeyvetlh laD puqpu' 'e' neHlu'} The second one. paqmeyvetlh laD puqpu' neHlu' One wants the children to read those books.
-- SuStel http://trimboli.name <http://trimboli.name/>_______________________________________________ tlhIngan-Hol mailing list tlhIngan-Hol@lists.kli.org http://lists.kli.org/listinfo.cgi/tlhingan-hol-kli.org
On 12/8/2018 1:42 PM, Daniel Dadap wrote:
(The sole known exception is not a good data point, as it involves one Klingon using another Klingon's sentence as the first sentence in a sentence-as-object construction. It may be that in such a case not having /something/ there is too much. We don't know how this exception works, so it's dangerous to base our understanding on it.
Out of curiosity, do you mind quoting that exception?
In /Star Trek VI, /one of the military officers says something, then Azetbur says *'e' neHbe' vavoy */That isn't what my father wanted,/ literally,/Daddy didn't want that./ -- SuStel http://trimboli.name
There is one additional example, but it's from paq'batlh, which i) is poetry*, ii) is adapted from an older form of the language* and iii) contains quite a lot of irregularities**. Doy'choH cha' porgh 'oy' cha' porgh 'ach Hat'chu' 'e' luneH neH tIqDu'Daj (paq'batlh, paq'raD, Canto 23, Stanza 7) * For the most part, though, the book is grammatically correct by "modern" tlhIngan Hol standards, or tries to be, so I wouldn't dismiss it out of hand. It is handy to keep in mind in case one wants to retcon out mistakes, though. ** This is probably the bigger concern. There was a lot of text, and the proof-readers only had a very limited time to look at it. //loghaD ________________________________ From: tlhIngan-Hol <tlhingan-hol-bounces@lists.kli.org> on behalf of SuStel <sustel@trimboli.name> Sent: Saturday, December 8, 2018 19:47 To: tlhingan-hol@lists.kli.org Subject: Re: [tlhIngan Hol] {neH} with SAO and indefinite subject On 12/8/2018 1:42 PM, Daniel Dadap wrote: (The sole known exception is not a good data point, as it involves one Klingon using another Klingon's sentence as the first sentence in a sentence-as-object construction. It may be that in such a case not having something there is too much. We don't know how this exception works, so it's dangerous to base our understanding on it. Out of curiosity, do you mind quoting that exception? In Star Trek VI, one of the military officers says something, then Azetbur says 'e' neHbe' vavoy That isn't what my father wanted, literally, Daddy didn't want that. -- SuStel http://trimboli.name
On Dec 8, 2018, at 12:53, Felix Malmenbeck <felixm@kth.se> wrote:
There is one additional example, but it's from paq'batlh, which i) is poetry*, ii) is adapted from an older form of the language* and iii) contains quite a lot of irregularities**.
Doy'choH cha' porgh
'oy' cha' porgh
'ach Hat'chu' 'e' luneH neH tIqDu'Daj
Ah, thanks. And thank you, SuStel, for the ST VI example. I agree that the 'e' in Azetbur’s sentence does not apply to the question of explicit 'e' with neH and SAO. I wonder if maybe I read the example in p'b and perhaps It informed my assumption that 'e' with neH is okay. It’s also entirely possible that I just made it up in my head. On the subject of it paq'batlh, I’ve long wondered whether the thing that looks like a qaghwI' is really a qaghwI' in the middle of paq'batlh, paq'yav, paq'raD, and paq'QIH. Like, if one were to write paq'batlh in pIqaD, would there be a qaghwI' between paq and batlh?
(paq'batlh, paq'raD, Canto 23, Stanza 7)
* For the most part, though, the book is grammatically correct by "modern" tlhIngan Hol standards, or tries to be, so I wouldn't dismiss it out of hand. It is handy to keep in mind in case one wants to retcon out mistakes, though.
** This is probably the bigger concern. There was a lot of text, and the proof-readers only had a very limited time to look at it.
//loghaD
From: tlhIngan-Hol <tlhingan-hol-bounces@lists.kli.org> on behalf of SuStel <sustel@trimboli.name> Sent: Saturday, December 8, 2018 19:47 To: tlhingan-hol@lists.kli.org Subject: Re: [tlhIngan Hol] {neH} with SAO and indefinite subject
On 12/8/2018 1:42 PM, Daniel Dadap wrote:
(The sole known exception is not a good data point, as it involves one Klingon using another Klingon's sentence as the first sentence in a sentence-as-object construction. It may be that in such a case not having something there is too much. We don't know how this exception works, so it's dangerous to base our understanding on it.
Out of curiosity, do you mind quoting that exception? In Star Trek VI, one of the military officers says something, then Azetbur says 'e' neHbe' vavoy That isn't what my father wanted, literally, Daddy didn't want that.
-- SuStel http://trimboli.name _______________________________________________ tlhIngan-Hol mailing list tlhIngan-Hol@lists.kli.org http://lists.kli.org/listinfo.cgi/tlhingan-hol-kli.org
participants (3)
-
Daniel Dadap -
Felix Malmenbeck -
SuStel