[93487] in tlhIngan-Hol
Re: [Tlhingan-hol] mutually subordinate clauses?
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Robyn Stewart)
Sun Jun 3 13:25:09 2012
Date: Sun, 03 Jun 2012 11:18:59 -0600
To: tlhIngan-Hol <tlhingan-hol@kli.org>
From: Robyn Stewart <robyn@flyingstart.ca>
In-Reply-To: <CA+7zAmN3kROMsH3d6FJQrDhUttDthvznKE6Cy0HM3PqNkmVqdA@mail.g
mail.com>
Errors-To: tlhingan-hol-bounces@stodi.digitalkingdom.org
At 08:35 '?????' 6/3/2012, De'vID jonpIn wrote:
>I suspect that most people would understand the following sentence,
>but is it grammatically aberrant?
>
>{mapawbe'chugh wIHIvlu'pu'mo'}
I read it as "If we do not arrive, on account of being attacked ..."
and await the reset of the sentence. I recommend that when you ask
questions like that that you separate what you think the sentence
means with more space, to avoid having people's interpretations
coloured by your expectations.
>"If we do not arrive, it is because we
>have been attacked."
For that you need perhaps {mapawbe'chugh, wIHIvlu'pu'mo' qaS} or
{mapawbe'chugh wIHIvlu'pu' 'e' yIpIH} or {mapawbe'chugh,
wIHIvlu'pu'mo' mapawbe'.}
>Does it need to be recast as something like one of the following?
>{mapawbe'chugh wIHIvlu'pu'mo' mapawbe'}
>{mapawbe'chugh vaj wIHIvlu'pu'}
The latter doesn't make the cause and effect clear.
>(I didn't invent the original sentence, I read a sentence like it
>somewhere and understood it, but its grammar bothered me a bit so I
>replaced the words to form a grammatically equivalent sentence, for
>the purposes of discussing it.)
I hope it wasn't in nuq bop bom.
- Qov
_______________________________________________
Tlhingan-hol mailing list
Tlhingan-hol@stodi.digitalkingdom.org
http://stodi.digitalkingdom.org/mailman/listinfo/tlhingan-hol
