[Tlhingan-hol] mutually subordinate clauses?

[Felix Malmenbeck]

> {mapawbe'chugh, wIHIvlu'pu' 'e' 'oS}
> or, sort of pedantic
> {wIHIvlu'pu' 'e' 'oS pawbe'taHghachmaj.}

Not sure I see the logic of using 'oS, here. 'agh or tob might work, though.
Also: {wIHIvlu'pu' net Sovbej mapawbe'chugh.}

However, my favorite remains {wIHIvlu'be'chugh mapawbej.}: It's short and succinct.

________________________________________
From: Terrence Donnelly [terrence.donnelly at sbcglobal.net]
Sent: Monday, June 04, 2012 05:37
To: tlhIngan-Hol
Subject: Re: [Tlhingan-hol] mutually subordinate clauses?

--- On Sun, 6/3/12, De'vID jonpIn <de.vid.jonpin at gmail.com> wrote:

> 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."

This seems like two subordinate clauses, and I would not accept it.

>
> 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 second option isn't too bad.

> (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.)
>

These kind of sentences with "It is..." always present problems to newbies. These are cleft expressions, and there is no "it"; it's just an English device to turn a verb phrase into the object of "because". If you want to stick to the spirit of the original, how about

{mapawbe'chugh, wIHIvlu'pu' 'e' 'oS}

or, sort of pedantic

{wIHIvlu'pu' 'e' 'oS pawbe'taHghachmaj.}

-- ter'eS



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