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

SuStel sustel at trimboli.name
Fri Nov 19 06:48:01 PST 2021

On 11/19/2021 9:34 AM, Will Martin wrote:
> I suspect that the problem with all of these attempts is that you are 
> all trying to expand upon an idiom that is essentially not 
> grammatical. While you can explain the obvious Sentence As Subject as 
> a not-slippery-slope idiom that can’t be generalized, you then proceed 
> to use it with a conditional that isn’t part of the original idiom, 
> which is essentially an attempt to generalize it to make it more 
> useful than the restrictions of the original idiom.

No. The problem with this isn't the apparent sentence as subject. The 
problem with it is that the conditional applies to the hypothetical *pu' 
DIlo',* but in the proposed solution *pu' DIlo'* is stated as fact. And 
if you try to make *pu' DIlo'* conditional, you're trying to use a 
conditional as the first sentence of a sentence as object, something we 
don't think is correct. The fact that the *'e' qa'* construction seems 
to employ a sentence as subject is completely irrelevant to the issue 
we're seeing.

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.kli.org/pipermail/tlhingan-hol-kli.org/attachments/20211119/9e3ef917/attachment-0003.htm>

More information about the tlhIngan-Hol mailing list