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

[JWalker671@aol.com]

ja' pagh:

> Hung tlhab je qotlhHa'taH Hung luSuqmeH tlhabchaj luwoDqangbogh ghotpu''e'.
>  
>  With an explicit subject, the head noun of the <-bogh> clause could now
>  grammatically be either <tlhabchaj> or <ghotpu'>, and <ghotpu'> is the one
>  that make sense. I added <-'e'> to make it quite clear which one was
>  intended.
  
HIja', mu'tlheghvam yajlaH laDwI'.   Still, between the verb and the subject 
fall four words, some sizable!    I think we make it even clearer by using 
"if/then" instead of the relative construction:

Hung luSuqmeH tlhabchaj luwoDqangchugh ghotpu',
vaj Hung tlhab je qotlhHa'taH.

You could put <ghotpu'vam> at the end for additional obviousness, though it's 
redundant.   

--jey'el