[tlhIngan Hol] joining multible {-bogh} phrases by {je}

[Will Martin]

I like SuStel’s response and wholly agree. I want to add two things:

You are using canon that uses {-chugh}, a dependent clause that generally goes before or after the main clause, as if it proves a point on {-bogh}. I disagree.

{-chugh} creates a dependent clause that precedes or follows a main clause. You parse these clauses serially.

By it’s nature, a Relative Clause is nested in a main clause.

It’s one thing to parse a series of serial clauses. Its perhaps a bit more challenging to parse a series of clauses nested in another clause.

You presented a whole sentence including a series of {-chugh} clauses at the beginning, followed by the main clause, all from canon, and then presented your own suggestion as three {-bogh} clauses with no main clause, just presuming that you can come up with a meaningful verdict on whether or not this works, and if the verdict is that it works, then you can just drop this into any main clause with a linking Head Noun, even if that Head Noun is the subject of two of the Relative Clauses and the object of the remaining one.

Even if it didn’t violate any grammar, to quote Sigourney Weaver from Galaxy Quest: “This scene was badly written!”

Why are you so determined to write impenetrable Klingon text? Why do you want to be the author of the verbal equivalent of “the Chompers”, filled with wholly unnecessary dangers? What is so abhorrent about clearly written text involving multiple sentences?

pItlh

charghwI’ ‘utlh
(ghaH, ghaH, -Daj)




> On Jun 9, 2022, at 8:00 AM, D qunen'oS <mihkoun at gmail.com> wrote:
> 
> There's the Ca'Non:
> 
> Qu' buSHa'chugh SuvwI', batlhHa' vangchugh, qoj matlhHa'chugh, pagh ghaH SuvwI''e'
> 
> If a warrior ignores duty, acts dishonorably, or is disloyal, he is nothing
> 
> Now suppose I write:
> 
> HoSbogh Suvqangbogh 'ej matlhbogh vay'
> someone who is strong willing to fight and loyal
> 
> Quchbogh Do'bogh vay' 'ej quvmoHlu'bogh.
> someone who is happy, fortunate and honored
> 
> According to the Ca'Non sentence, I think that the above are correct, since the Ca'Non sentence shows that only one {'ej} is necessary.
> 
> But am I right? Are the above indeed correct?
> 
> -- 
> Dana'an
> https://sacredtextsinklingon.wordpress.com/ <https://sacredtextsinklingon.wordpress.com/>
> Ζεὺς ἦν, Ζεὺς ἐστίν, Ζεὺς ἔσσεται· ὦ μεγάλε Ζεῦ
> _______________________________________________
> tlhIngan-Hol mailing list
> tlhIngan-Hol at lists.kli.org
> http://lists.kli.org/listinfo.cgi/tlhingan-hol-kli.org

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.kli.org/pipermail/tlhingan-hol-kli.org/attachments/20220609/3d3b47e0/attachment-0004.htm>