[tlhIngan Hol] is this grammatically correct ?

nIqolay Q niqolay0 at gmail.com
Wed Nov 6 07:48:57 PST 2019

On Wed, Nov 6, 2019 at 10:23 AM mayqel qunen'oS <mihkoun at gmail.com> 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,

Why? The sentence would be fine if it weren't in a *-bogh* clause: *pa' Qot
je nuvpu'* "people reclined there also", "people and others (i.e. the
emperor) reclined there". Should be fine to use it in a *-bogh* clause.

and I don't know whether the {pa'} can refer *only* to the {Qotbogh}.

It's more likely that people will interpret it as applying to the relative
clause, not the whole sentence with *jatlh*, since it's closer to the
relative clause. If someone interprets it as applying to *jatlh*, then you
just get "he said there, to the people also reclining..." It's not quite
the same, but if the people are within earshot, then they're probably in
the same basic location the emperor is, so the intended meaning will still
probably get across.

I'm not sure the suggested *latlh* is wholly necessary -- if the emperor is
talking to them, the reader will probably be able to conclude that they are
different people from the emperor.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.kli.org/pipermail/tlhingan-hol-kli.org/attachments/20191106/005e6cd9/attachment-0003.htm>

More information about the tlhIngan-Hol mailing list