tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Fri Feb 17 06:46:32 1995
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
Re: vaj
According to [email protected]:
>
> >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.
...
> {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".
What about the coordiational function of "then"? beje'be'chugh
vaj bIHegh. I guess I'm a little confused about it being an
adverbial in that sentence (or any other of the if/then
variety). I am probably just confused.
> 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'
--
\___
o_/ \
<\__,\
"> | Get a grip.
` |