[Tlhingan-hol] mutually subordinate clauses?

[lojmIt tI'wI' nuv]

While I think that all the suggestions here are good sentences expressing variations on the originally stated meaning, I can't agree that aspect markers explicitly and exclusively mark the difference between a general tendency of an action to occur and a specific instance of the action occurring. There's just no evidence that I can recall for this in TKD or other canon.

It might be kinda cool if it were true, but I doubt it's true. 

More likely, it's like plural suffixes on nouns. Put them in if you want to make a point of marking aspect, but if you leave it out, it's typically not a big deal. 

Sent from my iPad

On Jun 4, 2012, at 9:53 AM, David Trimboli <david at trimboli.name> wrote:

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