tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Thu Feb 16 10:43:22 1995
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
vaj
>Your comments about {vaj} are quite interesting. Yes, I have
>been using it as a conjunction, as has Okrand. I see it used
>more often as a conjunction than as an adverbial, though I do
>see it used as an adverbial. Considering the quantity of canon
>using it as a conjunction, we probably should see if Okrand
>wants to officially recognize {vaj} as both a conjunction and
>an adverbial.
There is something here I find extremely troubling and important that we deal
with here and now, so it doesn't haunt us later on.
In TKD, I look at 5.4 and see {vaj} is an adverbial. All places it is listed
in the dictionary it is labeled "(adv)". {vaj} is an adverbial. Adverbials
come at the beginning of a clause. I see nothing that says anything about
adverbials being used to conjoin two independent clause.
{vaj} is translated "so" in some places, and indeed "so" is used as a
coordinating conjunction. But all descriptions and contexts in canon that I
have seen lead me to believe that {vaj} is an adverbial and cannot take on
the coordinational function of "so".
If there is one instance of Okrand using {vaj} in this way, *point it out to
me*. Otherwise I'd like to hear no more of it. {vaj} is an adverbial.
Guido
charghwI'