[tlhIngan Hol] is this grammatically correct ?

SuStel sustel at trimboli.name
Wed Nov 6 07:52:00 PST 2019


On 11/6/2019 10:05 AM, mayqel qunen'oS wrote:
>
> Suppose I write:
>
>
> {raS retlhDaq Qot voDleH; pa' Qotbogh je nuvpu'vaD jatlh..}
>
>
> for:
>
>
> "the emperor was reclining next to the table; he said for the people 
> who were reclining there too.."
>
>
> Would the klingon sentence be grammatically correct ? I'm troubled by 
> the {je} following a {-bogh} clause, and I don't know whether the 
> {pa'} can refer *only* to the {Qotbogh}.
>
>
> I know I could express the desired meaning in other ways too, but I 
> can't stop wondering whether the klingon sentence is actually correct.
>
As others have said, it's not grammatically wrong, but it is difficult 
to follow, with a locative attached to a relative clause attached to a 
beneficiary attached to a verb.

You can simplify it: *raS retlhDaq Qot voDleH latlh je; latlhvaD jatlh 
voDleH...*

-- 
SuStel
http://trimboli.name

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.kli.org/pipermail/tlhingan-hol-kli.org/attachments/20191106/f9ac4c1e/attachment.html>


More information about the tlhIngan-Hol mailing list