I like this version MUCH better, since the earlier suggestions seem to be stretching grammar to avoid the “cat in the hat” problem. The original was basically trying to say, “The emperor spoke for those who reclined where he reclined,” and the “where he reclined” is problematic because it really wants to to be a relative clause with the location as the head noun. We can’t do that.

So, {SuStel} avoids the problem entirely by setting the location as a context grammatically independent of the sentence with {jatlh} as the main verb. We already know where the reclining was happening. We know everyone who was reclining. That’s context. He spoke to the others there.

The semicolons could be periods. It doesn’t really matter. We don’t know that the Klingon language distinguishes between the two.

charghwI’ vaghnerya’ngan

rInpa’ bomnIS be’’a’ pI’.




On Nov 6, 2019, at 10:52 AM, SuStel <sustel@trimboli.name> wrote:

On 11/6/2019 10:05 AM, mayqel qunen'oS wrote:
Suppose I write:

{raS retlhDaq Qot voDleH; pa' Qotbogh je nuvpu'vaD jatlh..}

for:

"the emperor was reclining next to the table; he said for the people who were reclining there too.."

Would the klingon sentence be grammatically correct ? I'm troubled by the {je} following a {-bogh} clause, and I don't know whether the {pa'} can refer *only* to the {Qotbogh}.

I know I could express the desired meaning in other ways too, but I can't stop wondering whether the klingon sentence is actually correct.

As others have said, it's not grammatically wrong, but it is difficult to follow, with a locative attached to a relative clause attached to a beneficiary attached to a verb.

You can simplify it: raS retlhDaq Qot voDleH latlh je; latlhvaD jatlh voDleH...

-- 
SuStel
http://trimboli.name
_______________________________________________
tlhIngan-Hol mailing list
tlhIngan-Hol@lists.kli.org
http://lists.kli.org/listinfo.cgi/tlhingan-hol-kli.org