tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Tue Aug 16 08:46:51 1994

Back to archive top level

To this year's listing

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

Re: KLBC: Re: rI' nobmey nobw...

> > jIHvo':
> > 
> > > > 'ej SoHvaD je
> > 
> > qSeroHSvo':
> > 
> In English, you would say "I love you", and the other person would reply
> "I love you, too", although grammatically you are effectively saying
> "And I love you".  That was the particular sense of "too" that I was
> trying to refer to.  In TKD 5.3, using{je} [how come thats not {je'}?]
> is applied to a situation of Me saying "I see trI'qal", and you saying
> "I see trI'qal too/also".  Or am I missing something.

I agree that both different ways of saying it (i.e., "And..." or 
"...too") are fine, and both are available in Klingon.  But, there is 
a difference; the two don't always equate.  Replying with "and," 
{'ej}, is a conjunction, joining two sentences.  If I said, "I see 
you," you *could* say, "And, I see the tribble."  Percectly fine.  

On the other hand, using {je} "too" incorporates reciprocity.  That's 
why you can just say, "me too": the full meaning can be inferred from 
the "too."  Consider how odd this sounds: you: "I see you."  me: "I 
see Clinton too."  It's a non-sequitur, because of the nature of 
"too" (assuming you're not Clinton).  So, while the meanings 
overlap in our original sentences, it's not necessarily the case 
that they will, and this is why we have two different forms.

> A frustrated 10th level physicist/3rd level grammarian

Physicist, eh?  If you want to see someone confused, try getting me to 
talk about physics!  I made an A in High School physics, but only 
because of my competitive nature: I had a very brainy lab-partner!

> {qSeroHS vayn}

--Holtej

Back to archive top level