It is not that the {-'e'} on the {romuluSnganpu'} is "close" to the {'e'} of the sao, which troubles me. It is another thing which puzzles me.. If the {qaStaHvIS DIS 'Iq} precedes the {'e'} of the sao, then will the {'e'} of the sao continue to refer to the {jaghpu' chaH romuluSnganpu''e'}, or will it refer to the {qaStaHvIS DIS 'Iq} instead ? I mean if the {qaStaHvIS..} directly precedes the sao, then the "thing which we believe" will still be "that the romulans are enemies" or the "during too many years" ? ~ nI'ghma On Dec 1, 2017 16:34, "Steven Boozer" <sboozer@uchicago.edu> wrote:
Why not move the time stamp – in this case a time subordinate clause – to the beginning of the sentence where we usually see it?
qaStaHvIS DIS 'Iq jaghpu' chaH romuluSnganpu''e' 'e' wIHar
For too long we believed that the Romulans were enemies.
We believed the Romulans were enemies far too long.
Though {-‘e’ ‘e’} does look odd, I admit.
--Voragh
*From:* nI'ghma
If we want to say "while too many years are happening, we believed that the romulans are enemies", then do we write:
{jaghpu' chaH romuluSnganpu''e'; qaStaHvIS DIS 'Iq 'e' wIHar}
or
{jaghpu' chaH romuluSnganpu''e'; 'e' wIHar qaStaHvIS DIS 'Iq}
Can the {qaStaHvIS DIS 'Iq} in the example above, precede the {'e'} of the sao ?
~ nI'ghma
_______________________________________________ tlhIngan-Hol mailing list tlhIngan-Hol@lists.kli.org http://lists.kli.org/listinfo.cgi/tlhingan-hol-kli.org