where the {'e'} of a sao refers
There is something I've been wondering for quite some time. A sao has the form {sentence 'e' verb}, with the {'e'} referring to the {sentence}. If we write {vIghro' vIje' 'e' Dalegh}, then this means "you saw that I fed the cat". But what happens, when before the {'e'} we have two joined sentences ? Suppose we write {vIghro' vIje' 'ej chab wIvut 'e' Dalegh}. Where does the {'e'} refer now ? Does it refer to the entire {vIghro' vIje' 'ej chab wIvut}, or does it only refer to the {chab wIvut} ? Does the {vIghro' vIje' 'ej chab wIvut 'e' Dalegh} mean: "I fed the cat, and you saw that we baked the pie", or does it mean "You saw that I fed the cat and that we baked the pie" ? Or does it mean both ? ~ nI'ghma
On 2/7/2018 10:11 AM, mayqel qunenoS wrote:
There is something I've been wondering for quite some time.
A sao has the form {sentence 'e' verb}, with the {'e'} referring to the {sentence}.
If we write {vIghro' vIje' 'e' Dalegh}, then this means "you saw that I fed the cat".
But what happens, when before the {'e'} we have two joined sentences ?
Suppose we write {vIghro' vIje' 'ej chab wIvut 'e' Dalegh}.
Where does the {'e'} refer now ? Does it refer to the entire {vIghro' vIje' 'ej chab wIvut}, or does it only refer to the {chab wIvut} ?
Does the {vIghro' vIje' 'ej chab wIvut 'e' Dalegh} mean:
"I fed the cat, and you saw that we baked the pie", or does it mean "You saw that I fed the cat and that we baked the pie" ? Or does it mean both ?
Strictly according to the text of TKD, it could mean either. Sentence as object is not defined as "sentence 'e' verb"; it is defined as "sentence1 sentence2" (although there is later mention of the "two-verb (or two-sentence) construction." There are several kinds of SAO, including those using *'e'* or *net,* those using *neH* in the second sentence, those using verbs of speech, and those using *rIntaH.* TKD doesn't give much explanation as to what sorts of sentences are allowed as sentence one or sentence two. It only uses basic sentences as components of the examples. I see no particular reason why a compound sentence couldn't be used as sentence one. For that matter, I'm not sure that sentence two couldn't be a compound sentence: *chab wIvut 'e' Dachaw' 'ej 'e' Dabej*/You permit us to and watch us bake a pie./ Maybe one could argue that the use of the phrase "two-verb... construction" means compound sentences can't be used in an SAO, but I don't think that was the intention of the phrase. I think it just didn't occur to Okrand. How about comparatives as sentence one? People do that all the time. *SoH HoS law' jIH HoS puS 'e' vItem*/I deny that you're stronger than me./ How about dependent clauses on either half of an SAO? No reason not to do that, and that would introduce more verbs, despite the "two-verb... construction." But you're right that there's ambiguity. As always, ambiguity is a normal part of language. If you want to avoid ambiguity, be more explicit. *vIghro' vIje' 'e' Dalegh 'ej chab wIvut 'e' Dalegh*/You see me feed the cat and you see us bake a pie./ -- SuStel http://trimboli.name
On 2/7/2018 10:35 AM, mayqel qunenoS wrote:
SuStel:
How about dependent clauses on either half of an SAO?
I can't understand this. Could you write an example ?
*jIghungchoHDI' jISop 'e' Dalegh jISop jIghunchoHDI' 'e' Dalegh* /You see me eat when I become hungry./ *jISoptaH mInDu'lIj DapoSmoHDI' 'e' Dalegh jISoptaH 'e' Dalegh mInDu'lIj DapoSmoHDI'* /When you open your eyes, you see me eating./ Now, for sanity's sake, I probably wouldn't embed the dependent clause in the middle of these sentences like this, but there's no actual rule preventing me from doing so. And all of these sentences contain some kind of ambiguity, but "might be ambiguous" is not a reason for something to be ungrammatical. -- SuStel http://trimboli.name
On 2/7/2018 10:27 AM, SuStel wrote:
Sentence as object is not defined as "sentence 'e' verb"; it is defined as "sentence1 sentence2" (although there is later mention of the "two-verb (or two-sentence) construction." There are several kinds of SAO, including those using *'e'* or *net,* those using *neH* in the second sentence, those using verbs of speech, and those using *rIntaH.*
Personally, I think that the sentence as object is just a subset of the general trend of "sentence squishing" that Klingon regularly engages in. *'uSDaj chop; chev*/bite his leg off!;/ *Danumlu'; Sa' Damoj*/promoted to general;/ *bIr; bortaS rur*/cold as revenge./ That is, Klingon doesn't mind shoving short, closely-related sentences together to make a single point. This is why I think Qov's *tlhIngan maH; taHjaj* /remain Klingon /is good: one mini-sentence is the setup; the other is the payoff. The sentiment is not complete until the entire utterance is complete. -- SuStel http://trimboli.name
By "dependent clauses on either half of a sao", you mean the {tlhIngan maH; taHjaj} ? ~ nI'ghma
On 2/7/2018 10:53 AM, mayqel qunenoS wrote:
By "dependent clauses on either half of a sao", you mean the {tlhIngan maH; taHjaj}
No. *tlhIngan maH; taHjaj* is not a sentence as object as defined by TKD. It is two sentences, pushed together because they're closely related. You /could/ put dependent clauses on either of these sentences and it would still be grammatical (though it would mean something else). *maquvchugh tlhIngan maH; taHjaj tlhIngan maH maquvchugh; taHjaj */If we are honorable, we are Klingon; may it continue./ *tlhIngan maH; maquvchugh taHjaj tlhIngan maH; taHjaj maquvchugh */We are Klingon; if we are honorable, may it continue./ When I say "dependent clause," I mean a verbal clause with a type 9 suffix on the verb that makes it need to have a main clause. These are described in TKD as "subordinate clauses," "relative clauses," and "purpose clauses." -- SuStel http://trimboli.name
SuStel: *> jIghungchoHDI' jISop 'e' Dalegh> jISop jIghunchoHDI' 'e' Dalegh* *> You see me eat when I become hungry.* *> jISoptaH mInDu'lIj DapoSmoHDI' 'e' Dalegh> jISoptaH 'e' Dalegh mInDu'lIj DapoSmoHDI'* *> When you open your eyes, you see me eating.*
Now, for sanity's sake, I probably wouldn't embed the dependent > clause in the middle of these sentences like this, but there's no > > actual rule preventing me from doing so.
Why did you write "for sanity's sake" ? What do you mean by that ? Do you mean, that if you embeded the dependent clause in the middle of sentences as the above, it would be confusing ? ~ nI'ghma
On 2/9/2018 12:55 PM, mayqel qunenoS wrote:
SuStel:* *
*> jIghungchoHDI' jISop 'e' Dalegh
jISop jIghunchoHDI' 'e' Dalegh* /> You see me eat when I become hungry./
*> jISoptaH mInDu'lIj DapoSmoHDI' 'e' Dalegh
jISoptaH 'e' Dalegh mInDu'lIj DapoSmoHDI'* /> When you open your eyes, you see me eating./
Now, for sanity's sake, I probably wouldn't embed the dependent > clause in the middle of these sentences like this, but there's no > > actual rule preventing me from doing so.
Why did you write "for sanity's sake" ? What do you mean by that ? Do you mean, that if you embeded the dependent clause in the middle of sentences as the above, it would be confusing ?
Yes. -- SuStel http://trimboli.name
participants (2)
-
mayqel qunenoS -
SuStel