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

[De'vID]

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.

-- 
De'vID
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.kli.org/pipermail/tlhingan-hol-kli.org/attachments/20211118/a311bca6/attachment-0031.htm>