On Thu, 18 Nov 2021 at 15:17, SuStel <sustel@trimboli.name> wrote:

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.

pu' DIlo'; yan DIlo' 'e' qa'chugh, maQap.
If we use phasers instead of swords, we'll win.

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.

While I had no problem understanding the intended meaning of the Klingon sentence, I wonder if the {-chugh} isn't attached to the wrong thing. The way it's written, it looks like "we use phasers" is a statement, not a conditional.

Maybe it should be {pu' DIlo'chugh, maQap; yan DIlo' 'e' qa'}. I know that looks weird, but the grammar of {'e' qa'} is weird.

You're right! We mustn't think of pu' DIlo'; yan DIlo' 'e' qa' as a verbal phrase.

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.

Tricky.

-- 
SuStel
http://trimboli.name