tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Sun Jun 03 20:37:56 2012
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
Re: [Tlhingan-hol] mutually subordinate clauses?
- From: Terrence Donnelly <[email protected]>
- Subject: Re: [Tlhingan-hol] mutually subordinate clauses?
- Date: Sun, 3 Jun 2012 20:37:36 -0700 (PDT)
- Dkim-signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=sbcglobal.net; s=s1024; t=1338781056; bh=lYb5C2SwpyliT9wHIB4fUnz6CkQbr1/tQKxi8EW6PGk=; h=X-YMail-OSG:Received:X-Mailer:Message-ID:Date:From:Subject:To:In-Reply-To:MIME-Version:Content-Type; b=5SeZkYBubN/UXyK6iqq31ES7vPgMneMCRszAxz0CTtYnT+IwgMkDSpaiH/399FR7S4iKynr2zEfGsT3dy+F0kMoAiaEgkMsWjrLdScgkWgSNR+gyf5Pey5ytz3m/bWE7mnN+k2/xMJFT3SKqx9y480PMvhrjZvgP1mUiUwvVE2w=
- Domainkey-signature: a=rsa-sha1; q=dns; c=nofws; s=s1024; d=sbcglobal.net; h=X-YMail-OSG:Received:X-Mailer:Message-ID:Date:From:Subject:To:In-Reply-To:MIME-Version:Content-Type; b=FQoFg7IsTy9dnAWoQRsvQXJESVY0IUIgnP/b8vRWMMZRSI0bTxJHRF7a2vSVBNsyzWhmcSdTG1nfVcBiThxXawWUtBD/gwHIbSBvKB7ovShWAztbCIwn7wjhc3uhZIN/h/u4+WzyH/Bhc/GRDa0X/GQ7L1kfOYUFbinqNzaP5pI=;
- In-reply-to: <CA+7zAmN3kROMsH3d6FJQrDhUttDthvznKE6Cy0HM3PqNkmVqdA@mail.gmail.com>
- List-archive: <http://stodi.digitalkingdom.org/pipermail/tlhingan-hol/>
- List-id: <tlhingan-hol.stodi.digitalkingdom.org>
- List-subscribe: <http://stodi.digitalkingdom.org/mailman/listinfo/tlhingan-hol>, <mailto:[email protected]?subject=subscribe>
--- On Sun, 6/3/12, De'vID jonpIn <[email protected]> wrote:
> I suspect that most people would
> understand the following sentence,
> but is it grammatically aberrant?
>
> {mapawbe'chugh wIHIvlu'pu'mo'} "If we do not arrive, it is
> because we
> have been attacked."
This seems like two subordinate clauses, and I would not accept it.
>
> Does it need to be recast as something like one of the
> following?
> {mapawbe'chugh wIHIvlu'pu'mo' mapawbe'}
> {mapawbe'chugh vaj wIHIvlu'pu'}
>
The second option isn't too bad.
> (I didn't invent the original sentence, I read a sentence
> like it
> somewhere and understood it, but its grammar bothered me a
> bit so I
> replaced the words to form a grammatically equivalent
> sentence, for
> the purposes of discussing it.)
>
These kind of sentences with "It is..." always present problems to newbies. These are cleft expressions, and there is no "it"; it's just an English device to turn a verb phrase into the object of "because". If you want to stick to the spirit of the original, how about
{mapawbe'chugh, wIHIvlu'pu' 'e' 'oS}
or, sort of pedantic
{wIHIvlu'pu' 'e' 'oS pawbe'taHghachmaj.}
-- ter'eS
_______________________________________________
Tlhingan-hol mailing list
[email protected]
http://stodi.digitalkingdom.org/mailman/listinfo/tlhingan-hol