[tlhIngan Hol] What would you do ?

[Rhona Fenwick]

ghItlhpu' mayqel, jatlh:
> If we have a simple sao, then there is no confusion in omitting punctuation
> before the {'e'}.
> But if we have an adverb, or a time stamp before the {'e'}, then wouldn't it be
> clearer if we added some punctuation before that adverb or time stamp ?

Why should it? Adverbs and time stamps appear invariably (with the sole exceptions of {neH} and {jay'}) at the beginning of clauses. If you're reading a sentence and you run into a time stamp or an adverb that isn't {neH} or {jay'}, then you already know you've reached a new clause, in just the same way as you know you've reached a new clause when you hit {'e'}.

One could probably concoct an example of a construction where a noun phrase is ambiguously acting as either a subject of the subordinated clause or as a time stamp of the {'e'}-clause, but I imagine examples where genuine ambiguity arises would be very few and far between.

QeS 'utlh
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.kli.org/pipermail/tlhingan-hol-kli.org/attachments/20190531/f06d7611/attachment-0015.htm>