Re: KLBC: Clause ordering...is this right?

[david joslyn <joslyn63@matrix.newpaltz.edu>]

On Fri, 23 Apr 1999 JuDmoS@aol.com wrote:

> 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
> 
> 
This is a prime example of when to use {vay'}. Here's how I'd recast it:

{Hung Sungmey thlab jeghqangDI' vay' Hung tlhab ghaq ghajlaHbe'}
"If someone is willing to sacrafice freedom for security, he can have
neither."

Or mayhaps as a command:

{Hung DaSungmeH tlhablIj yIjeghQo' pagh Hung tlhab ghap tIghajbe'}
"Do not sacrafice your freedom for security or you will have neither."


quljIb