I suspect that the problem with all of these attempts is that you are all trying to expand upon an idiom that is essentially not grammatical. While you can explain the obvious Sentence As Subject as a not-slippery-slope idiom that can’t be generalized, you then proceed to use it with a conditional that isn’t part of the original idiom, which is essentially an attempt to generalize it to make it more useful than the restrictions of the original idiom.

I suspect that is overly assumptive. It may very well be that the idiom only works in the simple format in which it was originally presented.

Evidence for this is how three of you don’t seem to be able to agree on the right way to word this example
.
pItlh

charghwI’ ‘utlh
(ghaH, ghaH, -Daj)




On Nov 19, 2021, at 6:54 AM, mayqel qunen'oS <mihkoun@gmail.com> wrote:

De'vID:
Maybe it should be {pu' DIlo'chugh, maQap; yan DIlo' 'e' qa'}.

I'm afraid I can't understand this. The way I read it is "If we use
phasers we'll win, instead of using swords". Shouldn't there be a
{-chugh} on the {yan DIlo'} too?

SuStel:
Maybe this can be simplified using the common shortcuts like so:
pu' DIlo'chugh, maQap; yan qa'.
If we use phasers, we will succeed. It replaces swords.
I don't know whether this works in the more formal style, however.

I can't understand this either. Could you please explain the reasons
which make you have doubts as to whether this could work in the formal
style?

--
Dana'an
https://sacredtextsinklingon.wordpress.com/
Ζεὺς ἦν, Ζεὺς ἐστίν, Ζεὺς ἔσσεται· ὦ μεγάλε Ζεῦ
_______________________________________________
tlhIngan-Hol mailing list
tlhIngan-Hol@lists.kli.org
http://lists.kli.org/listinfo.cgi/tlhingan-hol-kli.org