[Tlhingan-hol] mutually subordinate clauses?

[Felix Malmenbeck]

While I don't think there's anything strictly ruling such sentences out, I'm quite sure there's nothing ruling them in, neither, and it seems quite wrong to me. I might imagine it being used in casual conversations, though, just as I can imagine a Klingon casually throwing out a stand-alone subordinate clause.

I'd probably recast it as {wIHIvlu'be'chugh [vaj] mapawbej.} ("We'll certainly get there unless we're attacked.}.

________________________________________
From: De'vID jonpIn [de.vid.jonpin at gmail.com]
Sent: Sunday, June 03, 2012 16:35
To: tlhIngan-Hol
Subject: [Tlhingan-hol] mutually subordinate clauses?

I suspect that most people would understand the following sentence,
but is it grammatically aberrant?

{mapawbe'chugh wIHIvlu'pu'mo'} "If we do not arrive, it is because we
have been attacked."

Does it need to be recast as something like one of the following?
{mapawbe'chugh wIHIvlu'pu'mo' mapawbe'}
{mapawbe'chugh vaj wIHIvlu'pu'}

(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.)

--
De'vID

_______________________________________________
Tlhingan-hol mailing list
Tlhingan-hol at stodi.digitalkingdom.org
http://stodi.digitalkingdom.org/mailman/listinfo/tlhingan-hol