<html><head><meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=utf-8"></head><body style="word-wrap: break-word; -webkit-nbsp-mode: space; line-break: after-white-space;" class="">I believe that it was explained that for the normal use of the verb {qa’} the subject is the thing that replaces the object, not the person who causes one thing to replace another, so the examples given here are erroneous. Your original use, {yan qa’chugh pu’, maQap} is grammatically complete and correct. You can always add context. Say your group presented you with a plan to attack someone with swords, your suggestion would be a good response if you wanted them to use phasers instead of swords.<div class=""><br class=""></div><div class="">You could also probably say {yanvaD pu’ DIqa’moHpu'} to mean “We replaced swords with phasers," based on {SoHvaD tlhIngan Hol vIghojmoH}, which is apparently the way to use {-moH} when added to a verb that has separate causer, subject-of-action-of-verb, object-of-action-of-verb. I may be corrected this point. It’s one of my weaker areas of Klingon grammar.</div><div class=""><br class=""><div class="">
<meta charset="UTF-8" class=""><div dir="auto" style="caret-color: rgb(0, 0, 0); color: rgb(0, 0, 0); letter-spacing: normal; text-align: start; text-indent: 0px; text-transform: none; white-space: normal; word-spacing: 0px; -webkit-text-stroke-width: 0px; text-decoration: none; word-wrap: break-word; -webkit-nbsp-mode: space; line-break: after-white-space;" class=""><div>pItlh</div><div><br class=""></div><div>charghwI’ ‘utlh</div><div>(ghaH, ghaH, -Daj)</div><div class=""><br class=""></div></div><br class="Apple-interchange-newline"><br class="Apple-interchange-newline">
</div>
<div><br class=""><blockquote type="cite" class=""><div class="">On Nov 22, 2021, at 4:37 AM, De'vID <<a href="mailto:de.vid.jonpin@gmail.com" class="">de.vid.jonpin@gmail.com</a>> wrote:</div><br class="Apple-interchange-newline"><div class=""><div dir="ltr" class=""><div dir="ltr" class=""><br class=""></div><br class=""><div class="gmail_quote"><div dir="ltr" class="gmail_attr">On Sun, 21 Nov 2021 at 21:38, <<a href="mailto:luis.chaparro@web.de" class="">luis.chaparro@web.de</a>> wrote:<br class=""></div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left:1px solid rgb(204,204,204);padding-left:1ex">Thank you, charghwI' and De'vID for your feedback!<br class="">
<br class="">
De'vID:<br class="">
<br class="">
> (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.)<br class="">
<br class="">
Just a last idea: what about using *qa'* as a *normal* verb? I know this is not exactly the same as the idiom *'e' qa'*, but could something like this work?: *yan qa'chugh pu', maQap* (*If the phasers replace the swords, we'll win*). Could we even say something like: *pu'vaD yan DIqa'moHchugh, maQap* (*If we replace the swords with the phasers, we'll win*)?<br class="">
</blockquote></div><div class=""><br class=""></div>The sentence says nothing about *using* the phasers instead of knives, but it could work if the context is supplied, e.g., {nuH DIlo'bogh DIwivDI', pu'vaD yan DIqa'moHchugh, maQap} or something like that.<br clear="all" class=""><div class=""><br class=""></div>-- <br class=""><div dir="ltr" class="gmail_signature">De'vID</div></div>
_______________________________________________<br class="">tlhIngan-Hol mailing list<br class=""><a href="mailto:tlhIngan-Hol@lists.kli.org" class="">tlhIngan-Hol@lists.kli.org</a><br class="">http://lists.kli.org/listinfo.cgi/tlhingan-hol-kli.org<br class=""></div></blockquote></div><br class=""></div></body></html>