tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Tue Feb 17 08:14:54 1998
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
Re: taH mu' {'ej}
charghwI'vo:
According to [email protected]:
>
> maQoch DIlo'raH jIH je
> mu' {'ej} tam mu' {vaj} qelbogh qechvam taghmoH 'Iv?
...
> mu' {'ej} wIloDI' poH nIb wIqelnIS'a'
> jIjang: ghobe'
roD poH nIb wIqelba'. ghaytan reH poH nIb wIqel.
> ghorgh mu' {'ej} wIlo'nIS; ghorgh mu' {vaj} wIlo'nIS
> jIghoH: Adverb neH 'oH mu' {vaj}'e' 'ej cha' mu'tlheghmey rarlaHbe'
jIQochbe'. yIqel:
bIjeghbe'chugh vaj bIHegh. (TKD). nIteb naQbe' <bIjeghbe'chugh>.
vaj Daleghpu'. (ST3) wa' mutlhegh neH 'oH. pagh rar.
> tlhIngan tIgh: SuvwI' DevmeH paqDaq qonlu':
> bogh tlhInganpu', SuvwI'pu' moj, Hegh (Hutlh rarbogh mu'mey; poHmey pIm qel)
rarbogh mu'mey Hutlh. poHmey pIm qel.
> SuvmeH 'ej charghmeH bogh tlhInganpu' (poH ngu'be' mu' {'ej} qoj poH rap ngu')
I'd argue that purpose clauses have no time setting. They speak
for potential and intent. These can be simultaneous even if the
action of their verbs are not.
> tIqIpqu' 'ej nom tIqIp (poH rap ngu' mu' {'ej})
> Hem tlhIngan Segh 'ej maHemtaH 'e' wIHech (poH veb ngu' mu' {'ej})
jIQoch. quq ghu'meyvam. My current pride and my intent to
continue that pride both occur simultaneously during each
current moment. The continuation of the pride also is in action
while {Hem tlhIngan Segh} happens.
> 'etlh QorghHa'lu'chugh ragh 'etlh nIvqu' 'ej jejHa'choH (poH veb ngu')
jIQoch. ragh 'etlh nIvqu' 'ej jejHa'choH. quq wanI'meyvam. The
lack of care preceeded the rusting and dulling of the blade,
but the conjunction is between the rusting and dulling, which
do occur simultaneously.
> Qu' buSHa'chugh SuvwI', batlhHa' vangchugh, qoj matlhHa'chugh, pagh ghaH
> SuvwI''e' (poH rap ngu'law' mu'tlheghmey rarbogh mu' {qoj})
> nuHlIj DawIvpu', vaj yISuv (poH nIb ngu'laH mu' {vaj}, 'ach meq 'oS)
Daj chovnatlh. He really has used {vaj} as a conjunction here.
Both clauses can stand alone as sentences. While {vaj} is
obviously used adverbially here, it really ties these two
sentences together by a sense of cause. I see it having very
similar meaning to:
nuHlIj DawIvpu'mo' bISuvnIS jay'!
Certainly {vaj} is a special case. It always ties the verb it
preceeds to a previous verb, whether it is a conditional clause
or a complete sentence. Most commonly, it is a conditional
clause, as if this example had been: {nuHlIj DawIvpu'chugh vaj
yISuv!} but the condition has been met.
It's like a promise whether it is being offered or completed.
Promises are offered far more often than they are completed, so
we see more {Xchugh vaj Y} than we see {X vaj Y}.
> yIvoq, 'ach lojmItmey yISam
> yIvoq, 'ach yI'ol (poH rap ngu'ba' mu' {'ach})
> bIje'be'chugh vaj bIHegh (poH buSbe' mu' {vaj}, meq buS)
>
> qIb lengwI'vaD tlhIngan Hol paqDaq qonlu':
> SuD 'ej wov
> SuD 'ach wov
> Doq 'ej beqpuj rur (poH rap ngu'law' mu' {'ej} mu' {'ach} je)
> jop 'ej way'; wIjoppu' 'ej wIway'pu' (poH rap ngu' mu' {'ej}. vang cha'
> nuvpu'.)
reH quq 'e' vIHar.
> rIn
>
> DaH jIQIj:
> meq mIw joq buSlaw' mu' {vaj}; poH rap poH veb joq buSlaw' mu' {'ej};
wanI' veb 'oSbe' mu' <'ej> 'e' vIHarbej.
> poH
> buSbe'taHvIS mu'tlheghmey rarbej mu' {'ej}, mu' {'ach}, mu' {qoj}, mu' {pagh}
> je.
> vangbogh nuvpu' rap buSba' *conjunctions.
I like your research and your use of your hungry curiousity
here. I disagree about the use of conjunctions to indicate
sequential events. I don't believe that works in Klingon.
Except for that, I do agree with most of your conclusions here.
I think that {vaj} is usually an adverbial and not really a
conjunction, though there is that one case where it apparently
functions as a special kind of conjunction.
If there is an implied conditional that has been satisfied,
{vaj} apparently acts as a conjunction. The preceeding verb
apparently would have had {-chugh} on it were it not confirmed
that the condition has been met, so the {-chugh} is removed and
what, as a conditional, would have been a dependent clause
becomes a statement, which is NOT a dependent clause.
Under this single exception, {vaj} acts as a conjunction
between two independent clauses. The first clause must be the
one describing the satisfied condition. The second clause must
be the "promise" to be fulfilled now that the condition has
been met.
The word order aspect of this exception is the weakest part of
my conclusion here, since {-chugh} is one of those suffixes
which creates dependent clauses which, despite how much I
dislike it, can follow the main clause.
Going back to the example:
Implied: nuHlIj DawIvpu'chugh vaj yISuv!
Stated: nuHlIj DawIvpu', vaj yISuv!
Using TKD rules: yISuv nuHlIj DawIvpu'chugh!
What does this then imply if you have indeed chosen your
weapon? How could we say this with the conditional following
the main clause? All options look ugly:
*vaj yISuv nuHlIj DawIvpu'.*
*yISuv nuHlIj DawIvpu'.*
This is yet one more reason I dislike having dependent clauses
follow the main clause. Ugly with a capital "Ug".
> pItlh
> peHruS
I appreciate your use of tlhIngan Hol in this message. tlhoS
bIjatlhchu'. You spoke well and clearly toward making a good
point about an observation you've made from existing canon.
I'm impressed and pleased.
charghwI'