[tlhIngan Hol] {'e' qa'} "instead of" with the {qa'} bearing suffixes

SuStel sustel at trimboli.name
Thu Nov 18 07:21:56 PST 2021

On 11/18/2021 10:04 AM, De'vID wrote:
> On Thu, 18 Nov 2021 at 15:17, SuStel <sustel at trimboli.name> wrote:
>     I agree that turning an entire sentence-as-object construction
>     into a subordinate clause heads toward too much complexity, but
>     given the relative simplicity of the rest of it, I don't think
>     this reaches the limit.
>     *pu' DIlo'; yan DIlo' 'e' qa'chugh, maQap.*/
>     If we use phasers instead of swords, we'll win./
>     If the sentence-as-object construction were any more complicated,
>     it would probably be too much for me to accept it stylistically.
>     But I have no problem with this one.
> While I had no problem understanding the intended meaning of the 
> Klingon sentence, I wonder if the {-chugh} isn't attached to the wrong 
> thing. The way it's written, it looks like "we use phasers" is a 
> statement, not a conditional.
> Maybe it should be {pu' DIlo'chugh, maQap; yan DIlo' 'e' qa'}. I know 
> that looks weird, but the grammar of {'e' qa'} is weird.

You're right! We mustn't think of *pu' DIlo'; yan DIlo' 'e' qa'* as a 
verbal phrase.

Maybe this can be simplified using the common shortcuts like so:

*pu' DIlo'chugh, maQap; ***yan qa'.
**/If we use phasers, we will succeed. It replaces swords.

I don't know whether this works in the more formal style, however.


-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.kli.org/pipermail/tlhingan-hol-kli.org/attachments/20211118/810de6c3/attachment-0002.htm>

More information about the tlhIngan-Hol mailing list