tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Fri Apr 23 20:38:12 1999

Back to archive top level

To this year's listing

• Index by Date
• Index by Thread
• Index by Author

KLBC: Clause ordering...is this right?

• From: [email protected]
• Subject: KLBC: Clause ordering...is this right?
• Date: Fri, 23 Apr 1999 23:37:14 EDT

Hung tlhab ghap luqotlhtaHHa' Hung luSuqmeH tlhabchaj lujeghqangbogh.

The purpose clause ' Hung luSuqmeH ' (in order to obtain security) precedes 
the relative clause ' tlhabchaj lujeghqangbogh ' ( they which are willing to 
surrender their freedom). This entire construction follows the head noun ' 
luqotlhtaHHa' ' (they are undeserving of it) because it is the subject of the 
sentence. The object of the sentence is the phrase       ' Hung tlhab ghap ' 
( either security or freedom).

This was an attempt to translate something I heard on the radio today. The 
quote was : " Anyone who would sacrifice freedom for security is deserving of 
neither."

Is this correct? Is there a better way to recast this?

By the way, your comments and those of others regarding my last post were 
appreciated. The use of the -wI' suffix was a stupid mistake, and I  know 
better...I just got in a hurry.

juDmoS

• Follow-Ups:
  • Re: KLBC: Clause ordering...is this right?
    • From: david joslyn <[email protected]>

• Prev by Date: RE: Dal ghu'wIj
• Next by Date: KLBC: Moving Around
• Prev by thread: Re: <nugh> for nation
• Next by thread: Re: KLBC: Clause ordering...is this right?
• Index(es):
  • Date
  • Thread
  • Author

Back to archive top level