[3524] in tlhIngan-Hol
Re: Word used by Marnen
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU)
Tue Mar 1 17:37:26 1994
Errors-To: tlhIngan-Hol-request@klingon.East.Sun.COM
Errors-To: tlhIngan-Hol-request@klingon.East.Sun.COM
Errors-To: tlhIngan-Hol-request@klingon.East.Sun.COM
Reply-To: "Klingon Language List" <tlhIngan-Hol@klingon.East.Sun.COM>
Errors-To: tlhIngan-Hol-request@klingon.East.Sun.COM
From: "trI'Qal" <DOBELBOWER%OPUS@cutter.mco.edu>
To: "Klingon Language List" <tlhIngan-Hol@klingon.East.Sun.COM>
Date: Tue, 01 Mar 1994 13:50:08 -0400 (EDT)
X-Vms-To: CUTTER::IN%"tlhIngan-Hol@klingon.East.Sun.COM"
> It is probably not a grammatical requirement, but I find it much easier
>to read such complex sentences if the dependent clauses preceed the main
>clause, unless they are grammatically linked to the subject (like a relative
>clause attached to the subject). It more readily disambiguates whether a noun
>is the subject of one clause or the object of another, and as I go left to
>right, the verb suffixes let me know where all the pieces fit. I could read
>your original sentence, but it took some unscrambling before I could do it.
>If I had heard it instead of read it, I would not have the option of that
>kind of unscrambling without a significant pause.
>
> It is probably just a matter of style. Do others agree? Am I strange in
>this preference?
>
>charghwI'
No, you are NOT the only person like that... Anytime someone puts a subordinate
clause AFTER the main clause, I go "huh?"... until I relaize just what they
were doing. Unfortunately, the KD distictly says that a subordinate clause
(except for those using -meH) can go either place. (p. 62)
--HoD trI'Qal
tlhwD lIy So'
