tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Wed Feb 15 06:03:02 1995
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
Re: ye and thee
- From: "William H. Martin" <[email protected]>
- Subject: Re: ye and thee
- Date: Wed, 15 Feb 95 9:03:00 EST
- In-Reply-To: <[email protected]>; from "William H. Martin" at Feb 14, 95 3:56 pm
Reading my own post the next day, while in a better mood, I
feel like apologizing to everyone for my sarcasm. It is not a
trait that I admire and I usually manage to override the
temptation. Meanwhile, some days are better than others...
According to William H. Martin:
>
> According to Mark J. Reed:
> >
> > "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?
>
> If it is not considered legal, then a lot of people need to go
> back and rewrite a lot of text. {vaj} is also translated as
> "then", which fits quite well in this case.
>
> > In this case, we have -chugh turning a sentence into an adverbial;
>
> You are the first person I've ever heard express this
> grammatical construction in this way. {-chugh} turns a sentence
> into an adverbial? That would tend to make even more
> controversial a tendency I don't like, which is to place
> {-chugh} constructions AFTER the main verb. I'll be interested
> to hear other opinions on this.
>
> > 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?"
>
> "If you cannot speak Klingon, then why are you here?" I think
> the "if/then" construction has been around a while, at least in
> English. If that is ungrammatical, then I guess I've managed to
> go most of 40 years without being corrected before.
> Congratulations! As to whether or not Klingon considers such a
> thing to be grammatical ... gee, I wish I had my
> canon-searching software up and running. I'm pretty sure all
> the merchants say, {bIje'be'chugh vaj bIHegh}, which seems to
> violate your rule as well. Perhaps you speak Klingon better
> than Okrand, too?
>
> > It would seem to make more sense to me to use one or the other, but
> > not both; in the "vaj"-only form, it would be two sentences:
> >
> > tlhIngan Hol DajatlhlaHbe'chugh qatlh naDev SoHtaH?
> >
> > tlhIngan Hol DajatlhlaHbe'. vaj qatlh naDev SoHtaH?
>
> The second sentence pair sounds perfectly valid. The first
> sounds like you left out the {vaj} but most people would
> probably understand you despite the omission.
>
> > I dunno. "-chugh vaj" just feels wrong to me.
>
> It feels right to me, and apparently to Okrand and a lot of
> other Klingonists.
>
> > -marqoS
> >
> > --
> > Mark J. Reed
> > Email: [email protected] - Voice: +1 404 315 6296 x158 - Fax: +1 404 315 0293
> > SecureWare, Inc. / 2957 Clairmont Rd Suite 200 / Atlanta GA 30329-1647
>
> charghwI'
> --
>
> \___
> o_/ \
> <\__,\
> "> | Get a grip.
> ` |
>
charghwI'
--
\___
o_/ \
<\__,\
"> | Get a grip.
` |