tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Sun May 15 18:45:20 2005
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
Re: Subtle shadings of "then": Okrand's error ?
- From: [email protected]
- Subject: Re: Subtle shadings of "then": Okrand's error ?
- Date: Sun, 15 May 2005 21:44:25 EDT
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
In a message dated 5/14/2005 11:16:06 PM Central Daylight Time,
[email protected] writes:
You've missed my point, methinks. I didn't say "MO was wrong". I have no
problem with saying {X-chugh vaj Y} - as you say, it's canon, and even if it
weren't, it's no different to the redundant "then" that's found in the
English "If X, then Y". All I was intending to say was that I don't find
{bIjeghbe'chugh ngugh bIHegh} as wrong as Quvar does. In this particular
situation, yes, it's incorrect, and I agree with you and Quvar on that:
{bIjeghbe'chugh ngugh bIHegh} would be very wrong for this translation.
However, what I understood Quvar to be saying was that the form with {ngugh}
didn't make sense in general, and I disagree: I think there are some
situations (IOW, not this one) where {bIjeghbe'chugh ngugh bIHegh} is
grammatical and sensible. {ngugh} isn't serving as a "replacement" for
{vaj}, but as just another adverb *in addition to* {vaj}, which is optional
anyway. If you replace {vaj} where it's been omitted, it makes perfect sense
to me: {bIjeghbe'chugh vaj ngugh bIHegh} "if you do not surrender, then at
that time you will die". DaH bIyaj'a'?
jIyaj, 'ach jIQoch. munuQqu' mu'tlheghvetlh. mu'tlheghDaq mu' {ngugh} Dachel,
'ach meq vIyajbe'. qatlh mu'vetlh lo'lu'? mu'vetlh DachelDI', chay' mu'tlhegh
DaDub?
-- ter'eS