<html>
<head>
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=UTF-8">
</head>
<body>
<div class="moz-cite-prefix">On 11/18/2021 8:32 AM, Will Martin
wrote:<br>
</div>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:325E0809-C1F7-496F-B383-AEDD418E43B2@mac.com">
<meta http-equiv="content-type" content="text/html; charset=UTF-8">
I won’t presume that this is not some new thing that canon
suggests as correct,</blockquote>
<p>You should have presumed that, because that's what it is.</p>
<p><a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="http://klingon.wiki/En/Instead">http://klingon.wiki/En/Instead</a></p>
<p>Canonical examples:</p>
<p><b>'awje' vItlhutlh; HIq vItlhutlh 'e' qa'<br>
</b><i>I drink root beer instead of liquor.</i></p>
<p><b>jIQam; jIba' 'e' qa'<br>
</b><i>I stand instead of sitting.</i></p>
<p>The <b>'e',</b> and the second verb if a repeat, are often
dropped in everyday speech. You'd be likely to hear these as:</p>
<p><b>'awje' vItlhutlh; HIq 'e' qa'<br>
'awje' vItlhutlh; HIq qa'<br>
jIQam; jIba' qa'<br>
</b></p>
<p><br>
</p>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:325E0809-C1F7-496F-B383-AEDD418E43B2@mac.com">1. Making
the second sentence of a Sentence As Object construction a
dependent clause is uncommon, surfing the edge of complexity
limits of the language. Add anything else in terms of complexity
and communication might suffer.</blockquote>
<p>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.</p>
<div dir="auto">
<p><b>pu' DIlo'; yan DIlo' 'e' qa'chugh, maQap.</b><i><br>
If we use phasers instead of swords, we'll win.</i></p>
<p>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.<br>
<i></i></p>
</div>
<p><br>
</p>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:325E0809-C1F7-496F-B383-AEDD418E43B2@mac.com">4. This
comes really close to the Irrealis, which is problematic in
Klingon. You are apparently trying to say, “If we WOULD replace
swords with phasers, then we WOULD succeed.” Klingon doesn’t do
“would”.<br>
</blockquote>
<p>This isn't that kind of irrealis; this is a simple conditional.
As far as irrealis is concerned, this is no different than <b>bIjatlhHa'chugh,
qaHoH</b><i> If you say the wrong thing, I will kill you.</i></p>
<p>But Klingon <i>does</i> do irrealis, using a special
construction for counterfactuals:</p>
<p><a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="http://klingon.wiki/Word/Jal#More_Information">http://klingon.wiki/Word/Jal#More_Information</a></p>
<p>It is illustrated with a canonical example:</p>
<p><b>tlhIngan SoH net jalchugh, qagh DatIv<br>
</b><i>If you were a Klingon, you would enjoy gagh.</i><br>
</p>
<p>The difference between a conditional and a counterfactual is
canonically illustrated thus:</p>
<p>Conditional:<br>
<b>qaghwIj DaSopchugh, qaHoH<br>
</b><i>If you eat my gagh, I'll kill you.</i></p>
<p>Counterfactual:<br>
<b>qaghwIj DaSop net jalchugh, qaHoH<br>
</b><i>If you were eating my gagh, I would kill you.</i></p>
<p>Notice how the counterfactual is <i>not</i> indicated
morphologically in Klingon. It is expressed as a conditional
sentence-as-object, plus an indicative sentence. Where English
says <i>would verb,</i> Klingon just says <i>verb.</i> The <i>would</i>
comes from the <i>if one imagines that.</i><br>
</p>
<p>The fact that a standard grammatical construction, the
counterfactual, consists of a subordinate sentence as object also
casts doubt on claims that subordinate sentences as object are too
complex to sustain.<br>
</p>
<p><br>
</p>
<pre class="moz-signature" cols="72">--
SuStel
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="http://trimboli.name">http://trimboli.name</a></pre>
</body>
</html>