tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Sat Apr 24 12:47:41 1999
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
Re: KLBC: Clause ordering...is this right?
On Fri, 23 Apr 1999 [email protected] 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