[Tlhingan-hol] mutually subordinate clauses?

[David Trimboli]

On 6/4/2012 9:31 AM, De'vID jonpIn wrote:
>
> De'vID:
>>> I suspect that most people would understand the following
>>> sentence, but is it grammatically aberrant? {mapawbe'chugh
>>> wIHIvlu'pu'mo'}
>
> loghaD:
>> 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.
>
> Yes, that's how I felt about it as well.
>
> De'vID:
>>> Does it need to be recast as something like one of the
>>> following? {mapawbe'chugh wIHIvlu'pu'mo' mapawbe'} {mapawbe'chugh
>>> vaj wIHIvlu'pu'}
>
> Qov:
>> The latter doesn't make the cause and effect clear.
>
> You mean you might interpret it as "If we don't arrive, then we will
> have been attacked (as a consequence of our not arriving)"?  Doesn't
> the {-pu'} on the second sentence, but not on the first, lead away
> from (even if it doesn't completely rule out) this interpretation?

I don't understand Qov's comment either. I read {mapawbe'chugh 
wIHIvlu'pu'} (the {vaj} is extraneous) as "if we do not arrive, we were 
attacked." With {-pu'} on the main verb but not on the subordinate verb, 
I read this as something like "if we don't show up, it means we were 
attacked," which is what I think you have in mind.

> De'vID:
>>> (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.)
>
> Qov:
>> I hope it wasn't in nuq bop bom.
>
> No, it was in a personal conversation.  The original was something
> like, "If you don't hear from me, it's because I'm occupied with (a
> particular task)."  I changed the sentence because the specifics and
> context weren't relevant to its grammar.
>
> loghaD:
>> However, my favorite remains {wIHIvlu'be'chugh mapawbej.}: It's
>> short and succinct.

I would once again point out that {-pu'} indicates perfective aspect (a 
completed event in its entirety) rather than perfect tense (doing 
something prior to the time context). Lack of a Type 7 suffix means the 
verb is neither completed nor continuous, a propensity to the verb.

{wIHIvlu'be'chugh mapawbej} means "if we are not generally attacked, we 
certainly generally arrive." It indicates a tendency to arrive if one is 
not attacked. If you want to talk about a particular arrival or a 
particular attack, you'll need aspect:

wIHIvlu'be'pu'chugh mapawbej
If we were not attacked (in the instance I'm talking about), we will 
certainly arrive.

wIHIvlu'be'chugh mapawbejpu'
If we are not typically attacked, we certainly arrived (in this instance).

wIHIvlu'be'pu'chugh mapawbejpu'
If we were not attacked (in the instance I'm talking about), we 
certainly arrived (in this instance).

Exactly what these mean will depend on the context. Note that the 
sentences don't actually talk about instances; I'm just using those as 
notes where English cannot easily make the distinction.

-- 
SuStel
http://www.trimboli.name/