# RE: KLBC: Two IFs on one THEN?

• From: "Andeen, Eric" <Eric.Andeen@Sequencia.com>
• Subject: RE: KLBC: Two IFs on one THEN?
• Date: Mon, 25 Jan 1999 16:10:33 -0700

```jatlh Dawut:

> Greetings,

> Clipped Question:
> Can I put two IFs on one THEN if I use an AND?

HIja'.

> Full Question:
> I was corresponding with the crew of the {Qo'noS qa'} when I
> wrote the following sentence:

> bIvchugh targh, 'ej bobcho' SumchoHchugh targh, vaj bIt
> tera'ngan. If the targ breaks the rules and gets near the
> module, then the Terran will be nervous.

There is no problem with the two <-chugh> clauses, but there is another
problem. In charghwI''s interview with Marc Okrand in the last HolQeD, we
got quite a bit of new information, including a bit about <Sum>. We now know
that it cannot take an object. The most common usage is simply <Sum X>,
meaning that <X> is near the speaker. If you want to say that something is
near something else, you would say <X-Daq Sum Y>. Also, if the subject (or
object) is the same in the second clause, you don't need to repeat it. I'd
also add a <-choH> to the <bIt>. Here's what you wind up with then:

bIvchugh targh 'ej bobcho'Daq SumchoHchugh, vaj bItchoH tera'ngan.

> That led me to wonder if it is ungrammatical to attach two
> IF statements {-chugh} onto one THEN statement {vaj}, as in:

> If A _and_ If B, then C (or) 1-chugh 'ej 2-chugh vaj 3

There is really no direct grammatical correlation between the <-chugh> and
the <vaj>. The <-chugh> clause is a subordinate clause, just like <-vIS> or
<-mo'> clauses, and the <vaj> is (in this case), just a bit of semantic goo
that doesn't really mean anything. There is no (grammatical) reason you
can't have two different subordinate clauses in the same sentence.