[Tlhingan-hol] Concerning the purpose clauses

[qunnoQ HoD]

thank you all very much,for trying to make things clearer ; you're very
helpful and I'm really grateful !

..but unfortunately I'm drifting way deeper into the nebula,a nebula which
is getting even darker..  I just can't understand this. It is not that I
haven't studied the verb prefixes ; I just can't seem to get the "feel" of
how {-meH} is to be used.

the only way this can be fixed,is for me to fire thrusters,so that my
position will be seen and then someone hopefully fire a tractor beam,thus
pulling me out of this jay' nebula..

meaning that I will try writing some sentences using the {-meH}, hoping
that someone will correct me,and finally come to understand the mystery of
{-meH}. but I will write these sentences tomorrow,because right now my mind
is tired and I just need to sleep in my ready room. After all its so quite
and peaceful, drifting in this dark nebula..

cpt qunnoQ




On Mon, Nov 9, 2015 at 4:20 PM, SuStel <sustel at trimboli.name> wrote:

> 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
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Tlhingan-hol mailing list
> Tlhingan-hol at kli.org
> http://mail.kli.org/mailman/listinfo/tlhingan-hol
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mail.kli.org/pipermail/tlhingan-hol/attachments/20151109/e3ef6fae/attachment.html>