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

[De'vID]

On Sat, 20 Nov 2021 at 16:50, <luis.chaparro at web.de> wrote:

> Since I'm a beginner I lack the knowledge to answer this question, but I
> was thinking on the possibility of making a whole sentence the object of
> *qa'*:
>
> *pu' DIlo'chugh, maQap. yan DIlo'chugh, maluj 'e' qa'* (*If we use
> phasers, we'll win. It replaces that if we use swords, we'll lose* or
> something like *Instead of losing if we use swords, we'll win if we use
> phasers)
>
> I suppose it's completely wrong, but I would like to know why in order to
> improve my understanding of the language :-) Thank you!
>

I think the sentence is fine, but it doesn't have the same meaning as
mayqel's original sentence. If you drop the subordinate clauses, you end up
with: {maQap; maluj 'e' qa'} "we win instead of lose". So your sentence
says, "we win (if we use phasers) instead of lose (if we use knives)". In
your sentence, winning replaces losing. What mayqel wanted to express was
phasers replacing knives.

(Winning instead of losing is a consequence of phasers instead of knives,
so probably in most situations your solution would be suitable, but maybe
there are some cases where one really does want to state the replacement in
the antecedent of the conditional instead of the consequent.)

-- 
De'vID
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.kli.org/pipermail/tlhingan-hol-kli.org/attachments/20211121/2399c0bc/attachment-0015.htm>