tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Sat Jul 09 06:04:39 1994
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
Re: KLBC (old): Grammar Question
- From: HoD trI'Qal <[email protected]>
- Subject: Re: KLBC (old): Grammar Question
- Date: Sat, 09 Jul 1994 17:55:19 -0400 (EDT)
Grant Glouservo':
>>Billvo':
>>>... bIghuH 'e' Dalujchugh vaj bIluj 'e' DaghuH.
>
>trI'Qalvo'
>>Another good quote...!
>
>jIQochbe'
>
>>Second, the <vaj> is a bit extraneous. It is certainly not
>>incorrect, but think about this a moment, and I think you will see what I
>>mean...
>>
>>--HoD trI'Qal
>
>Would that also apply to this little quote I have adapted from CK?
> qablIjDaq Soj tu'lu'bejchugh, vaj DatIvba'
>
>If I am going to keep it in my .sig, I want it to be correct!
I think I wasn't quite understood here.
There is absolutely *noting* grammatically incorrect about having <vaj>
preceed the "then"-part of an if/then phrase. I was just commenting that it
wasn't *required*. If the quote you are reciting came from a tape, it is
correct--period. Leave it exactly how it came from the tape. The tapes are
considered 'correct', regardless... even if there is something we perceive as
a mistake.
Unless, of course, I am totally confused. But I don't think so. Leave it how
you heard it.
--HoD trI'Qal