So, let me ask a trick question : Do you accept exclamations with no
overt subject ? For example :
teH ! wa'Hu' Ha'DIbaH vISopta'.
it is true ! yesterday I ate an animal.
Those are two perfectly legal Klingon sentences.
Now, that you accepted the "exclamations with no overt subject", the
second question comes : Could I write the previous sentence as such ?
teH, wa'Hu' Ha'DIbaH vISopta'.
it is true, yesterday I ate an animal.
You're just joining two sentences with a comma. But how we write Klingon in Latin script is just a convention, and has nothing to do with how Klingon is written "natively".
Do you accept this sentence ? If yes, then allow me to observe, that
we no longer have an "exclamation with no overt subject" ; instead we
have the sentence {teH} "it is true", which is followed by another
sentence {wa'Hu' Ha'DIbaH vISopta'} "yesterday I ate an animal". And
one could analyze this sentence as
"what is true ?"
"It is true that yesterday I ate an animal"
The implicit subject of the first sentence is {ngoDvam} or some such.
So, if we accept the previous analysis, we finally come to the point
of this mail :
Consider this sentence :
HarDI' chaH mob chaH
when they believe they are alone
If someone showed me this a few days ago, I would only translate it as
"when their believing takes place, they are alone".
But can I use this sentence in order to express the meaning too "when
they believe (that) they are alone" ?
No. And what's the relation with your previous example? Here, the second sentence is apparently the object of the first. They're not alike.
Why is the {mob chaH} necessary
to be considered as the outcome of the {HarDI' chaH} ? Why couldn't
someone analyze this sentence as :
"as soon as they believe what ?"
"(that) they are alone"
Because that's not how Klingon grammar works?
--
De'vID