tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Sun Jun 18 08:17:58 1995

Back to archive top level

To this year's listing

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]

Re: "Do it or else..."?

I wrote:
> Using {vaj} after {-chugh} seems unnecessary.  It's probably just personal
> preference, but I tend to translate {vaj} more as "thus" than as "then".

charghwI' wrote:
> It's definitely personal preference. There is canon for using
> {vaj} here, given {bIje'be'chugh vaj bIHegh} as "Buy or die" on
> one of the audiotapes. While there is probably some canon
> somewhere for omitting {vaj}, I cannot specifically recall any.

TKD 6.2.2. "Subordinate clauses" has the only complete example in the
dictionary proper of a sentence which uses {-chugh}.  It gives both
{bIjatlhHa'chugh qaHoH} and {qaHoH bIjatlhHa'chugh} as "clear" examples.

> > "If X then Y" is okay in English, but {X-chugh Y} is just fine in Klingon.
> Fine. Show me the canon that proves that. Don't just declare
> it. Prove it. Just because it makes sense to you does not make
> it a law of grammar.

I'd say TKD is about as canonical as it gets.
Mark Okrand DID make it a law of grammar, nyah, nyah.  I win! :-)
(jItlhIj.  ramjep jabbI'IDvam vIghItlhlI' 'ej jIDoghchoH.)

Then again, in the appendix "A Selected List of Useful Klingon Expressions"
I also find:  "Surrender or die!"  {bIjeghbe'chugh vaj bIHegh}
This parallels the "Buy or die" on the tape, as well as the "Use it or die"
that Soqra'tIS proposed.  After considering these, I can see how using the
sentence as a threat lets my translation of {vaj} as "thus" work anyway.

> Even if it IS okay to omit {vaj} is it NOT okay to tell someone
> they are wrong if they include it.

I agree with this completely, and in fact I put some real thought into how
to NOT say it was wrong.  Note the wording of my commentary:  I said {vaj}
"seems unnecessary", not "is extraneous" or "doesn't belong here".

*sigh*  This debate might not be stupid or heated, but it IS becoming long.

-- ghunchu'wI'

Back to archive top level