[Tlhingan-hol] mutually subordinate clauses?

[Terrence Donnelly]

--- On Mon, 6/4/12, Felix Malmenbeck <felixm at kth.se> wrote:


>"Terrence Donnelly" <terrence.donnelly at sbcglobal.net>
> > {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.}

I could not recall any other verbs off the top of my head. There may be better ones than {'oS}.

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

This just doesn't say the same thing. The original was saying "Take our non-arrival as a sign that we were attacked," i.e., "Here is how to interpret our non-arrival", maybe implying that we want to arrive so badly, that only an attack would stop us.  This just says "If we aren't attacked, we will arrive," a simple statement of fact, like "If it doesn't rain, we'll have a picnic."

-- ter'eS