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). -- SuStel http://trimboli.name