tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Mon Feb 23 13:15:15 1998

Back to archive top level

To this year's listing

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

Re: poH qelDI' tlhIngan Hol mu'tlheghmey

DloraH 
>>SKI: I believe {'ej} joins sentences by joining the action of the
>>verbs, much as described at length in TKD. I do not feel confined 
>>to using it with concurrent actions alone. I have noticed that the 
>>verb suffixes {-DI'} and {-taHvIS} help tell us the relationship of 
>>time that the two clauses' verbs have, also.
>>
>>peHruS
>
>show me canon examples.
>I don't have a closed mind on this. You just need to prove your 
>idea. The canon we've discussed so far support my idea.
>
>DloraH

I do not believe that Klingon verb conjunctions carry the idea of 
passing time the way that English ones often do.  Most of this idea 
has been explained and thoroughly backed with canon. I wish to add 
one thing, to clear some possible confusion. The sentences joined by 
'ej CAN have different time contexts, it's just that {'ej} doesn't 
seem to suggest the time context or cause relationships the way "and" 
can.

{wa'Hu' jI'IQ 'ej DaHjaj jIQuch}
Yesterday I was sad and today I am happy.

{wa'Hu' HIq vItlhutlh 'ej DaHjaj jI'uH}
Yesterday I drank liquor and today I have a hangover.

{wa'Hu' jIbwIj vISay'moH 'ej wa'leS maSDaq Saq Duj}
Yesterday I washed my hair and tomorrow a ship will land on the moon.

Nothing wrong with these sentences. They all contain two 
statements that may or may not be related. 

It's just that the sentence {jIbwIj vISay'moH 'ej maSDaq Saq Duj} 
doesn't imply any sequence.  "I will wash my hair and ships landed on 
the moon," is a reasonable translation, although I would suggest that 
without some pretty convincing context the two ideas don't even 
belong in the same paragraph.

- Qov

Back to archive top level