tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Mon Feb 13 20:54:57 1995
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
Re: ye and thee
On Mon, 13 Feb 1995, Mark J. Reed wrote:
> "William H. Martin" <[email protected]> writes:
> \ tlhIngan Hol DajatlhlaHbe'chugh vaj qatlh naDev SoHtaH?
> ^^^^^^^^^
> Is it considered legal to use -chugh and vaj together like this?
Yes, it supported by the canon phrase: bIjeghbe'chugh vaj bIHegh.
> In this case, we have -chugh turning a sentence into an adverbial; further
> modifying the main sentence with "vaj" seems at least redundant, if not wrong.
> Something like the English
>
> *"If you do not speak Klingon, so why do you remain here?"
I would translate it more as, "If you are not able to speak Klingon, then
why do you remain here?" The above sentence may not be the best example
of {-chugh}/{vaj} usage but you often see {-chugh} and {vaj} together.
They closely approximate the English if/then constuction. {vaj} is not
required to follow {-chugh}, it merely emphasizes the following sentence
is a probable or neccessary consequence of the preceeding subordinate clause.
E.g. reH yuch DaSoptaHchugh vaj bIrorchoH. (If you always eat chocolate,
then you will become fat.)
> -marqoS
yoDtargh