[tlhIngan Hol] {vaj} connecting {-meH} clauses

SuStel sustel at trimboli.name
Wed Oct 27 10:37:56 PDT 2021

On 10/27/2021 1:30 PM, mayqel qunen'oS wrote:
> SuStel:
> > The second phrase you wrote isn't so that
> > the coffee doesn't spill; it's so that in
> > order that the coffee doesn't spill.
> I've been trying to resist the urge to ask this, but I can't. At least 
> I resisted for three whole hours..
> Suppose I write:
> {HIvje' vIHmoHbe'lu'meH, vaj Qoy'be' qa'vIn, ngaDmoHwI' le' lo'lu'}
> "In order that something doesn't move the glass, so the coffee won't 
> spill, a special base can be used"
> Aside the fact that there's a parenthetical phrase, is there something 
> wrong? Does this sentence make sense?

Yes, there's something wrong. *vaj Qoy'be' qa'vIn* is an independent 
clause, not part of the purpose clause *HIvje' vIHmoHbe'lu'meH.* In 
English, /so the coffee won't spill/ can be interpreted as an 
independent clause sometimes, but here it means /so THAT the coffee 
won't spill,/ which is a dependent clause.

It's like how you can't say this in Klingon:

*qaSamchugh 'ej bIqetbe', qajon.*/If I find you and you don't run, I 
will catch you. /(This is ungrammatical.)

/You don't run/ can be interpreted as an independent clause in other 
contexts, but here it's just one component of the conjoined conditions: 
IF (I find you + you don't run). It's not (if I find you) + (you don't run).

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.kli.org/pipermail/tlhingan-hol-kli.org/attachments/20211027/de65f9f6/attachment-0003.htm>

More information about the tlhIngan-Hol mailing list