We know that the {'ej} is used, in order to join sentences. Now, at the risk of sounding like the village idiot, I will ask: What exactly is a sentence ? If I write: "while I was walking, I stepped on a cat", then that's a sentence. If I write: "while I was walking and while I was eating, I stepped on a cat", then that's a sentence too. But what exactly are the "while I was walking" and "while I was eating" on their own ? Are they sentences ? The reason I'm writing this is because I want to ask: Can we write: {jIyIttaHvIS 'ej jISoptaHvIS, vIghro' vIgho'} ? Or if the {jIyIttaHvIS} and {jISoptaHvIS} aren't sentences on their own, one cannot join them by the use of {'ej} ? qunnoH jan puqloD
On 15 November 2016 at 11:26, mayqel qunenoS <mihkoun@gmail.com> wrote:
Can we write:
{jIyIttaHvIS 'ej jISoptaHvIS, vIghro' vIgho'} ?
From SkyBox card 1: {tlhIngan wo' Degh 'oH Deghvam'e'. tlhIngan Dujmey law'qu' SommeyDaq batlh cha'lu'. juHqo' Qo'noSvo' loghDaq lengtaHvIS tlhInganpu' 'ej qo'mey Sar charghtaHvIS chaH Dat tlhIngan may'Duj luleghDI' neH qIb nganpu' buQpu' may'Duj 'ej ghIjpu' 'oH. nIteb ghIjpu' je Deghvam.} "This marking represents the Klingon Empire and has been emblazoned upon the hulls of countless Klingon Starships. During the aggressive expansion of the Klingon people from their homeworld of Kronos into space, this symbol grew to become as feared throughout the galaxy as the menacing profiles of their battlecruisers."
Note the part that says {lengtaHvIS... 'ej charghtaSvIS}. -- De'vID
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). 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" 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.. qunnoH jan puqloD On Tue, Nov 15, 2016 at 12:32 PM, De'vID <de.vid.jonpin@gmail.com> wrote:
On 15 November 2016 at 11:26, mayqel qunenoS <mihkoun@gmail.com> wrote:
Can we write:
{jIyIttaHvIS 'ej jISoptaHvIS, vIghro' vIgho'} ?
From SkyBox card 1: {tlhIngan wo' Degh 'oH Deghvam'e'. tlhIngan Dujmey law'qu' SommeyDaq batlh cha'lu'. juHqo' Qo'noSvo' loghDaq lengtaHvIS tlhInganpu' 'ej qo'mey Sar charghtaHvIS chaH Dat tlhIngan may'Duj luleghDI' neH qIb nganpu' buQpu' may'Duj 'ej ghIjpu' 'oH. nIteb ghIjpu' je Deghvam.} "This marking represents the Klingon Empire and has been emblazoned upon the hulls of countless Klingon Starships. During the aggressive expansion of the Klingon people from their homeworld of Kronos into space, this symbol grew to become as feared throughout the galaxy as the menacing profiles of their battlecruisers."
Note the part that says {lengtaHvIS... 'ej charghtaSvIS}.
-- De'vID _______________________________________________ tlhIngan-Hol mailing list tlhIngan-Hol@lists.kli.org http://lists.kli.org/listinfo.cgi/tlhingan-hol-kli.org
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
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
I think that it's better to remember that {'ej} connects clauses, not just sentences. The two parts ending in {-taHvIS} are not relative clauses, but temporal clauses ("while..."), they could also be called converbs ("-ing"). Linguistically speaking, it is the best to remember that {je} connects noun phrases (so not just nouns, but also nouns with relative clauses, nouns with adjectives, pronouns, etc.), and {'ej} connects everything else (though not everything). We have to remember that MO didn't write TKD for a linguistic audience and that he didn't always use extremely precise unambiguous terminology. So when he says sentences in this case, he might actually mean clauses, or verbs, or verbal phrases. Canon examples show when {'ej} is used. Note, that {'ej} can also connect 2 relative clauses: (X-bogh 'ej Y-bogh Z = a Z which is X and Y), although I cannot find the example right now. - André 2016-11-15 13:51 GMT+01:00 mayqel qunenoS <mihkoun@gmail.com>:
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
_______________________________________________ tlhIngan-Hol mailing list tlhIngan-Hol@lists.kli.org http://lists.kli.org/listinfo.cgi/tlhingan-hol-kli.org
andre muller:
nouns with relative clauses
What is a "noun with relative clause" ? Could you write an example ? andre muller:
Note, that {'ej} can also connect 2 relative clauses: (X-bogh 'ej Y-bogh Z = a Z which is X and Y), although I cannot find the example right now.
Perhaps it is {SuDbogh Dargh 'ej wovbogh}, but I don't remember the source.. qunnoH jan puqloD On Tue, Nov 15, 2016 at 4:42 PM, André Müller <esperantist@gmail.com> wrote:
I think that it's better to remember that {'ej} connects clauses, not just sentences. The two parts ending in {-taHvIS} are not relative clauses, but temporal clauses ("while..."), they could also be called converbs ("-ing").
Linguistically speaking, it is the best to remember that {je} connects noun phrases (so not just nouns, but also nouns with relative clauses, nouns with adjectives, pronouns, etc.), and {'ej} connects everything else (though not everything).
We have to remember that MO didn't write TKD for a linguistic audience and that he didn't always use extremely precise unambiguous terminology. So when he says sentences in this case, he might actually mean clauses, or verbs, or verbal phrases. Canon examples show when {'ej} is used.
Note, that {'ej} can also connect 2 relative clauses: (X-bogh 'ej Y-bogh Z = a Z which is X and Y), although I cannot find the example right now.
- André
2016-11-15 13:51 GMT+01:00 mayqel qunenoS <mihkoun@gmail.com>:
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
_______________________________________________ tlhIngan-Hol mailing list tlhIngan-Hol@lists.kli.org http://lists.kli.org/listinfo.cgi/tlhingan-hol-kli.org
_______________________________________________ tlhIngan-Hol mailing list tlhIngan-Hol@lists.kli.org http://lists.kli.org/listinfo.cgi/tlhingan-hol-kli.org
That might have been the example, yes. A relative clause is formed with {-bogh} in Klingon, so {paq vIlaDlI'bogh} is the book that I am reading. So your sentence is an example of a noun {Dargh} with two relativized verbs attached to it. - André 2016-11-15 16:56 GMT+01:00 mayqel qunenoS <mihkoun@gmail.com>:
andre muller:
nouns with relative clauses
What is a "noun with relative clause" ? Could you write an example ?
andre muller:
Note, that {'ej} can also connect 2 relative clauses: (X-bogh 'ej Y-bogh Z = a Z which is X and Y), although I cannot find the example right now.
Perhaps it is {SuDbogh Dargh 'ej wovbogh}, but I don't remember the source..
qunnoH jan puqloD
On Tue, Nov 15, 2016 at 4:42 PM, André Müller <esperantist@gmail.com> wrote:
I think that it's better to remember that {'ej} connects clauses, not just sentences. The two parts ending in {-taHvIS} are not relative clauses, but temporal clauses ("while..."), they could also be called converbs ("-ing").
Linguistically speaking, it is the best to remember that {je} connects noun phrases (so not just nouns, but also nouns with relative clauses, nouns with adjectives, pronouns, etc.), and {'ej} connects everything else (though not everything).
We have to remember that MO didn't write TKD for a linguistic audience and that he didn't always use extremely precise unambiguous terminology. So when he says sentences in this case, he might actually mean clauses, or verbs, or verbal phrases. Canon examples show when {'ej} is used.
Note, that {'ej} can also connect 2 relative clauses: (X-bogh 'ej Y-bogh Z = a Z which is X and Y), although I cannot find the example right now.
- André
2016-11-15 13:51 GMT+01:00 mayqel qunenoS <mihkoun@gmail.com>:
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
_______________________________________________ tlhIngan-Hol mailing list tlhIngan-Hol@lists.kli.org http://lists.kli.org/listinfo.cgi/tlhingan-hol-kli.org
_______________________________________________ tlhIngan-Hol mailing list tlhIngan-Hol@lists.kli.org http://lists.kli.org/listinfo.cgi/tlhingan-hol-kli.org
_______________________________________________ tlhIngan-Hol mailing list tlhIngan-Hol@lists.kli.org http://lists.kli.org/listinfo.cgi/tlhingan-hol-kli.org
I see.. So, in order to say "the cat that I gave you and the bird of prey that I sent you", I will say: {vIghro' Danobbogh toQ DangeHbogh je} And if I want to say "the cat that I gave you and the bird of prey that I sent you, are noisy", I will write: {chuS vIghro' Danobbogh toQ DangeHbogh je} Would you agree with the above ? qunnoH ghoghwIj HablI'vo' vIngeHta' On 15 Nov 2016 6:22 pm, "André Müller" <esperantist@gmail.com> wrote:
That might have been the example, yes.
A relative clause is formed with {-bogh} in Klingon, so {paq vIlaDlI'bogh} is the book that I am reading. So your sentence is an example of a noun {Dargh} with two relativized verbs attached to it.
- André
2016-11-15 16:56 GMT+01:00 mayqel qunenoS <mihkoun@gmail.com>:
andre muller:
nouns with relative clauses
What is a "noun with relative clause" ? Could you write an example ?
andre muller:
Note, that {'ej} can also connect 2 relative clauses: (X-bogh 'ej Y-bogh Z = a Z which is X and Y), although I cannot find the example right now.
Perhaps it is {SuDbogh Dargh 'ej wovbogh}, but I don't remember the source..
qunnoH jan puqloD
On Tue, Nov 15, 2016 at 4:42 PM, André Müller <esperantist@gmail.com> wrote:
I think that it's better to remember that {'ej} connects clauses, not just sentences. The two parts ending in {-taHvIS} are not relative clauses, but temporal clauses ("while..."), they could also be called converbs ("-ing").
Linguistically speaking, it is the best to remember that {je} connects noun phrases (so not just nouns, but also nouns with relative clauses, nouns with adjectives, pronouns, etc.), and {'ej} connects everything else (though not everything).
We have to remember that MO didn't write TKD for a linguistic audience and that he didn't always use extremely precise unambiguous terminology. So when he says sentences in this case, he might actually mean clauses, or verbs, or verbal phrases. Canon examples show when {'ej} is used.
Note, that {'ej} can also connect 2 relative clauses: (X-bogh 'ej Y-bogh Z = a Z which is X and Y), although I cannot find the example right now.
- André
2016-11-15 13:51 GMT+01:00 mayqel qunenoS <mihkoun@gmail.com>:
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
_______________________________________________ tlhIngan-Hol mailing list tlhIngan-Hol@lists.kli.org http://lists.kli.org/listinfo.cgi/tlhingan-hol-kli.org
_______________________________________________ tlhIngan-Hol mailing list tlhIngan-Hol@lists.kli.org http://lists.kli.org/listinfo.cgi/tlhingan-hol-kli.org
_______________________________________________ tlhIngan-Hol mailing list tlhIngan-Hol@lists.kli.org http://lists.kli.org/listinfo.cgi/tlhingan-hol-kli.org
_______________________________________________ tlhIngan-Hol mailing list tlhIngan-Hol@lists.kli.org http://lists.kli.org/listinfo.cgi/tlhingan-hol-kli.org
Ah yes, completely right with the cat & BoP example. I would say the sentences in just the same way. I forgot that I was talking about {je} there, so I think I got confused in my last message a bit. These are simply "big" nouns, more or less (Noun Phrases or NPs), so {je} connects them. - André 2016-11-15 17:35 GMT+01:00 mayqel qunenoS <mihkoun@gmail.com>:
I see..
So, in order to say "the cat that I gave you and the bird of prey that I sent you", I will say:
{vIghro' Danobbogh toQ DangeHbogh je}
And if I want to say "the cat that I gave you and the bird of prey that I sent you, are noisy", I will write:
{chuS vIghro' Danobbogh toQ DangeHbogh je}
Would you agree with the above ?
qunnoH ghoghwIj HablI'vo' vIngeHta'
On 15 Nov 2016 6:22 pm, "André Müller" <esperantist@gmail.com> wrote:
That might have been the example, yes.
A relative clause is formed with {-bogh} in Klingon, so {paq vIlaDlI'bogh} is the book that I am reading. So your sentence is an example of a noun {Dargh} with two relativized verbs attached to it.
- André
2016-11-15 16:56 GMT+01:00 mayqel qunenoS <mihkoun@gmail.com>:
andre muller:
nouns with relative clauses
What is a "noun with relative clause" ? Could you write an example ?
andre muller:
Note, that {'ej} can also connect 2 relative clauses: (X-bogh 'ej Y-bogh Z = a Z which is X and Y), although I cannot find the example right now.
Perhaps it is {SuDbogh Dargh 'ej wovbogh}, but I don't remember the source..
qunnoH jan puqloD
On Tue, Nov 15, 2016 at 4:42 PM, André Müller <esperantist@gmail.com> wrote:
I think that it's better to remember that {'ej} connects clauses, not just sentences. The two parts ending in {-taHvIS} are not relative clauses, but temporal clauses ("while..."), they could also be called converbs ("-ing").
Linguistically speaking, it is the best to remember that {je} connects noun phrases (so not just nouns, but also nouns with relative clauses, nouns with adjectives, pronouns, etc.), and {'ej} connects everything else (though not everything).
We have to remember that MO didn't write TKD for a linguistic audience and that he didn't always use extremely precise unambiguous terminology. So when he says sentences in this case, he might actually mean clauses, or verbs, or verbal phrases. Canon examples show when {'ej} is used.
Note, that {'ej} can also connect 2 relative clauses: (X-bogh 'ej Y-bogh Z = a Z which is X and Y), although I cannot find the example right now.
- André
2016-11-15 13:51 GMT+01:00 mayqel qunenoS <mihkoun@gmail.com>:
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
_______________________________________________ tlhIngan-Hol mailing list tlhIngan-Hol@lists.kli.org http://lists.kli.org/listinfo.cgi/tlhingan-hol-kli.org
_______________________________________________ tlhIngan-Hol mailing list tlhIngan-Hol@lists.kli.org http://lists.kli.org/listinfo.cgi/tlhingan-hol-kli.org
_______________________________________________ tlhIngan-Hol mailing list tlhIngan-Hol@lists.kli.org http://lists.kli.org/listinfo.cgi/tlhingan-hol-kli.org
_______________________________________________ tlhIngan-Hol mailing list tlhIngan-Hol@lists.kli.org http://lists.kli.org/listinfo.cgi/tlhingan-hol-kli.org
_______________________________________________ tlhIngan-Hol mailing list tlhIngan-Hol@lists.kli.org http://lists.kli.org/listinfo.cgi/tlhingan-hol-kli.org
so, strictly speaking, the {vIghro' Danobbogh} isn't a relative clause; it is a noun phrase, right ? sorry for insisting on this; I just want to clarify this, before moving on.. qunnoH ghoghwIj HablI'vo' vIngeHta' On 15 Nov 2016 6:41 pm, "André Müller" <esperantist@gmail.com> wrote:
Ah yes, completely right with the cat & BoP example. I would say the sentences in just the same way. I forgot that I was talking about {je} there, so I think I got confused in my last message a bit. These are simply "big" nouns, more or less (Noun Phrases or NPs), so {je} connects them.
- André
2016-11-15 17:35 GMT+01:00 mayqel qunenoS <mihkoun@gmail.com>:
I see..
So, in order to say "the cat that I gave you and the bird of prey that I sent you", I will say:
{vIghro' Danobbogh toQ DangeHbogh je}
And if I want to say "the cat that I gave you and the bird of prey that I sent you, are noisy", I will write:
{chuS vIghro' Danobbogh toQ DangeHbogh je}
Would you agree with the above ?
qunnoH ghoghwIj HablI'vo' vIngeHta'
On 15 Nov 2016 6:22 pm, "André Müller" <esperantist@gmail.com> wrote:
That might have been the example, yes.
A relative clause is formed with {-bogh} in Klingon, so {paq vIlaDlI'bogh} is the book that I am reading. So your sentence is an example of a noun {Dargh} with two relativized verbs attached to it.
- André
2016-11-15 16:56 GMT+01:00 mayqel qunenoS <mihkoun@gmail.com>:
andre muller:
nouns with relative clauses
What is a "noun with relative clause" ? Could you write an example ?
andre muller:
Note, that {'ej} can also connect 2 relative clauses: (X-bogh 'ej Y-bogh Z = a Z which is X and Y), although I cannot find the example right now.
Perhaps it is {SuDbogh Dargh 'ej wovbogh}, but I don't remember the source..
qunnoH jan puqloD
On Tue, Nov 15, 2016 at 4:42 PM, André Müller <esperantist@gmail.com> wrote:
I think that it's better to remember that {'ej} connects clauses, not just sentences. The two parts ending in {-taHvIS} are not relative clauses, but temporal clauses ("while..."), they could also be called converbs ("-ing").
Linguistically speaking, it is the best to remember that {je} connects noun phrases (so not just nouns, but also nouns with relative clauses, nouns with adjectives, pronouns, etc.), and {'ej} connects everything else (though not everything).
We have to remember that MO didn't write TKD for a linguistic audience and that he didn't always use extremely precise unambiguous terminology. So when he says sentences in this case, he might actually mean clauses, or verbs, or verbal phrases. Canon examples show when {'ej} is used.
Note, that {'ej} can also connect 2 relative clauses: (X-bogh 'ej Y-bogh Z = a Z which is X and Y), although I cannot find the example right now.
- André
2016-11-15 13:51 GMT+01:00 mayqel qunenoS <mihkoun@gmail.com>:
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
_______________________________________________ tlhIngan-Hol mailing list tlhIngan-Hol@lists.kli.org http://lists.kli.org/listinfo.cgi/tlhingan-hol-kli.org
_______________________________________________ tlhIngan-Hol mailing list tlhIngan-Hol@lists.kli.org http://lists.kli.org/listinfo.cgi/tlhingan-hol-kli.org
_______________________________________________ tlhIngan-Hol mailing list tlhIngan-Hol@lists.kli.org http://lists.kli.org/listinfo.cgi/tlhingan-hol-kli.org
_______________________________________________ tlhIngan-Hol mailing list tlhIngan-Hol@lists.kli.org http://lists.kli.org/listinfo.cgi/tlhingan-hol-kli.org
_______________________________________________ tlhIngan-Hol mailing list tlhIngan-Hol@lists.kli.org http://lists.kli.org/listinfo.cgi/tlhingan-hol-kli.org
_______________________________________________ tlhIngan-Hol mailing list tlhIngan-Hol@lists.kli.org http://lists.kli.org/listinfo.cgi/tlhingan-hol-kli.org
On 11/15/2016 11:46 AM, mayqel qunenoS wrote:
so, strictly speaking, the {vIghro' Danobbogh} isn't a relative clause; it is a noun phrase, right ?
It's a noun phrase /and/ a relative clause. -- SuStel http://trimboli.name
That's right. It's both. In this case, {vIghro'} is the so-called head of the noun phrase, as well as the head of the relative clause. It's the main element of the construction, and the one that (in other languages, like German, Greek, French) projects its features onto the rest of the phrase or clause, usually things like tense, aspect, number. Also, a {vIghro' Danobbogh} is a kind of {vIghro'}, not a kind of {Danobbogh}, and a {vIghro' 'IH} is a type of {vIghro'}, not a kind of {'IH}. This isn't relevant for Klingon, though. But it's useful to know this terminology for further discussions. - André 2016-11-15 18:22 GMT+01:00 SuStel <sustel@trimboli.name>:
On 11/15/2016 11:46 AM, mayqel qunenoS wrote:
so, strictly speaking, the {vIghro' Danobbogh} isn't a relative clause; it is a noun phrase, right ?
It's a noun phrase *and* a relative clause.
-- SuStelhttp://trimboli.name
_______________________________________________ tlhIngan-Hol mailing list tlhIngan-Hol@lists.kli.org http://lists.kli.org/listinfo.cgi/tlhingan-hol-kli.org
It seems you've gotten confused and started using 'relative clause' when the topic was 'subordinate clause'. lay'tel SIvten On Tue, Nov 15, 2016 at 6:51 AM, mayqel qunenoS <mihkoun@gmail.com> wrote:
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
_______________________________________________ tlhIngan-Hol mailing list tlhIngan-Hol@lists.kli.org http://lists.kli.org/listinfo.cgi/tlhingan-hol-kli.org
participants (5)
-
André Müller -
De'vID -
mayqel qunenoS -
MorphemeAddict -
SuStel