[Tlhingan-hol] Concerning the purpose clauses

[SuStel]

On 11/9/2015 8:58 AM, Will Martin wrote:

> Is there a similar slot for dependent clauses? Are we limited to one?
> We’ve been shown that there is no single slot for adverbials; we can
> have more than one. If we are allowed to use multiple Type 9 dependent
> clauses, would they require a conjunction between them? If we are
> required to use a conjunction, would that still be the case if one
> clause preceded the main clause and the other followed it?

I would expect that dependent clauses with the same type 9 suffix would 
require a conjunction between them, but that this would not necessarily 
be true between clauses with different suffixes. This is, however, based 
entirely on my own experience with English, so I would not try to 
enforce this.

So'Ha'chugh Duj 'ej ghoSchugh yIQaw'
if the ship uncloaks and if it approaches, destroy it!

wa'maH cha'logh Qoylu'pu'DI' tawDaq qaleghchugh qaHoH
at noon if I see you on the street I'll kill you

I imagine that using dependent clauses on both sides of the main clause 
would be as grammatically acceptable and stylistically deplorable as it 
would be in English:

bISo'Ha'chugh qaQaw' choghoSchugh
if you uncloak I'll destroy you if you approach me

But I could see it working with different suffixes:

narghDI' Duj yIQaw' pu'DaH tI'lu'pu'chugh
when the ship appears destroy it if the phaser banks have been repaired

-- 
SuStel
http://trimboli.name