Just noticed this line in /paq'batlh:/ DaH mararchuq mayIntaHvIS wa' Dol bIH qa''e' porgh'e' je We are now connected, Spirit and body are one, Until our time comes. What's of interest is the sentence *wa' Dol bIH qa''e' porgh'e' je.* This demonstrates clearly that when you've got a "to be" sentence with a topic as well as a noun, the pronoun agrees with the topic, not the first noun. *wa' Dol* is singular; *qa''e' porgh'e' je* is plural. *bIH* is plural. It's not *wa' Dol 'oH qa''e' porgh'e' je.* -- SuStel http://trimboli.name
On Fri, 12 Oct 2018 at 19:30, SuStel <sustel@trimboli.name> wrote:
Just noticed this line in *paq'batlh:*
DaH mararchuq mayIntaHvIS wa' Dol bIH qa''e' porgh'e' je
We are now connected, Spirit and body are one, Until our time comes.
What's of interest is the sentence *wa' Dol bIH qa''e' porgh'e' je.* This demonstrates clearly that when you've got a "to be" sentence with a topic as well as a noun, the pronoun agrees with the topic, not the first noun. *wa' Dol* is singular; *qa''e' porgh'e' je* is plural. *bIH* is plural. It's not *wa' Dol 'oH qa''e' porgh'e' je.*
I am experiencing {nIbpoH}, the feeling I have done this before... [Enterprise explodes] On Thu, 4 Feb 2016 at 19:36, SuStel <sustel@trimboli.name> wrote:
Another interesting tidbit from paq'batlh:
[pe']
First, in the {wa' Dol} line, we have the pronoun agreeing with the subject but not the object. {wa' Dol} is an {'oH}; {qa''e' porgh'e' je} are plural.
Second, we know that a {qa'} is capable of using language, but the combination {qa' porgh je} has gotten the pronoun {bIH}, which indicates no language ability. A {porgh} is undoubtedly an {'oH}, not a {ghaH}, so the conjunction of these two "genders" has led to the less language-capable one controlling the pronoun.
-- De'vID
On Oct 13, 2018, at 11:09, De'vID <de.vid.jonpin@gmail.com> wrote:
On Fri, 12 Oct 2018 at 19:30, SuStel <sustel@trimboli.name> wrote: Just noticed this line in paq'batlh:
DaH mararchuq mayIntaHvIS wa' Dol bIH qa''e' porgh'e' je
We are now connected, Spirit and body are one, Until our time comes.
What's of interest is the sentence wa' Dol bIH qa''e' porgh'e' je. This demonstrates clearly that when you've got a "to be" sentence with a topic as well as a noun, the pronoun agrees with the topic, not the first noun. wa' Dol is singular; qa''e' porgh'e' je is plural. bIH is plural. It's not wa' Dol 'oH qa''e' porgh'e' je.
I am experiencing {nIbpoH}, the feeling I have done this before...
[Enterprise explodes]
[Enterprise explodesqa']
On Thu, 4 Feb 2016 at 19:36, SuStel <sustel@trimboli.name> wrote: Another interesting tidbit from paq'batlh:
[pe']
First, in the {wa' Dol} line, we have the pronoun agreeing with the subject but not the object. {wa' Dol} is an {'oH}; {qa''e' porgh'e' je} are plural.
Second, we know that a {qa'} is capable of using language, but the combination {qa' porgh je} has gotten the pronoun {bIH}, which indicates no language ability. A {porgh} is undoubtedly an {'oH}, not a {ghaH}, so the conjunction of these two "genders" has led to the less language-capable one controlling the pronoun.
-- De'vID _______________________________________________ tlhIngan-Hol mailing list tlhIngan-Hol@lists.kli.org http://lists.kli.org/listinfo.cgi/tlhingan-hol-kli.org
In the three years I've been on this list, I remember this subject having come up only once. Then, on the thread this subject had come up, it was concluded that we don't know what to do in these situations. So, thank qeylIS, that SuStel found this paq'batlh example, so the problem is now solved. ~ 'ISterlIng
Well, we have evidence of the solution. I wouldn’t declare it definitively solved just yet. -- SuStel http://trimboli.name From: mayqel qunenoS Sent: Saturday, October 13, 2018 3:48 PM To: tlhingan-hol@kli.org Subject: Re: [tlhIngan Hol] Agreement with pronouns In the three years I've been on this list, I remember this subject having come up only once. Then, on the thread this subject had come up, it was concluded that we don't know what to do in these situations. So, thank qeylIS, that SuStel found this paq'batlh example, so the problem is now solved. ~ 'ISterlIng
Well, we have evidence of the solution. I wouldn’t declare it definitively solved just yet. -- SuStel http://trimboli.name From: mayqel qunenoS Sent: Saturday, October 13, 2018 3:48 PM To: tlhingan-hol@kli.org Subject: Re: [tlhIngan Hol] Agreement with pronouns In the three years I've been on this list, I remember this subject having come up only once. Then, on the thread this subject had come up, it was concluded that we don't know what to do in these situations. So, thank qeylIS, that SuStel found this paq'batlh example, so the problem is now solved. ~ 'ISterlIng
Am 13.10.2018 um 18:09 schrieb De'vID:
I am experiencing {nIbpoH}, the feeling I have done this before...
Wow, me too. I was going to add that information to the Klingon Language wiki - and voilà: it's there already! http://www.klingonwiki.net/En/ToBe But I have to agree with SuStel that this is not a final solution, it's only an observation of a one time event. It may be a special situation, and we all know that grammar in paq'batlh must always be taken carefully. -- Lieven L. Litaer aka the "Klingon Teacher from Germany" http://www.klingonisch.de http://www.klingonwiki.net/En/Paqbatlh
participants (5)
-
Daniel Dadap -
De'vID -
Lieven L. Litaer -
mayqel qunenoS -
SuStel