tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Sun Sep 01 15:18:32 1996

Back to archive top level

To this year's listing

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

Re: KLBC: {-vaD} (oh, and {vaj} too !)


On Sun, 1 Sep 1996 14:16:39 -0700 HoD trI'Qal 
<[email protected]> wrote:

...
> >And secondly, I was looking through the example phrases in the back of the
> >book and I happened across "Surrender or die!"
> >
> >Whilst {bIjaghbe'chugh vaj bIHegh} makes perfect sense to me, it doesn't
> >mention anything about using {vaj} in a subordinate clause in the body of
> >the book.
> >
> >Theoretically, you could also write the phrase as
> >
> >{bIHegh bIjaghbe'chugh}

While this makes perfect sense when translated into 
English, I did not immediately recall any canon which put 
the {-chugh} last. Checking TKD 6.2.2, Okrand makes clear 
that the order is variable:

bIjatlhHa'chugh bIHegh.
bIHegh bIjatlhHa'chugh.

Note that neither example uses {vaj}. 

> >so that {vaj} wouldn't fit properly but the sentence would still make sense.
> >Can I assume that {vaj} is a "not necessary but do it if you like" thing or
> >does it only apply in "canon" sentences like the one above and most of the
> >time you WOULDN'T (shouldn't) use it ?
> 
> 
> As far as I know, it is a "not necessary but do it if you like" thing.  It
> may be required only if the -chugh clause comes first... that we don't know.
> It is certainly not a "cannon-only" thing.

You are right that it is optional. There are a number of 
canon examples with and without it. If you are suggesting 
that if the {-chugh} phrase comes first, it may be 
required, that is not accurate. There seems to be no rule:

bIjeghbe'chugh vaj bIHegh.
bIje'be'chugh vaj bIHegh. PK
bIHeghvIpchugh bIHeghpu'. TKW p. 72
 
> The only time *I* wouldn't use it, is when the -chugh clause comes second;
> then it makes no sense to.  I beleive the use of <vaj> falls under the
> "debated topics" list, but I'm not usre on that one.
 
I tend to favor using it. It's just a personal style.
 
> >Also, would
> >
> >{bIjagh pagh bIHegh}
> >
> >be wrong ?

Considering that {jagh} is a noun, yes, it is wrong. You 
wanted {jegh}. Meanwhile, there is a logical difference 
between these sentences. {bIjeghbe'chugh vaj bIHegh} means 
that if you surrender, perhaps you will die, or perhaps you 
will not. So long as you surrender, nothing is promised 
about your dying. Meanwhile, if you don't surrender, you 
will definitely die. That's what "if-then" is all about. 
The truth table for this statement looks like:

                        You die       You live
You surrender             true          true
You don't surrender       true          false

Meanwhile, using the exclusive "or" has a totally different 
truth table:

                       You die        You live
You surrender           false           true
You don't surrender     true            false

See? You are promising that your enemy will live if they 
surrender, which is much more generous than the original 
Klingon proverb.

Meanwhile, if you had chosen {qoj} instead, the truth table 
would be the same as the original:

                      You die       You live
You surrender          true          true
You don't surrender    true          false

That's because "not X and/or Y" is the logical equivalent 
of "If X, then Y", or as they are written in logical terms:

~X ^U Y = X -> Y

Hmmmm. I'm not sure about that ^U. Maybe it should be "<>"? 
It's been a few years...

> >"Either you (will) surrender or you (will) die"

That should be "You will surrender and/or you will die." 
While English doesn't have two different kind of "or" 
words, it DOES make a difference. We reserve the right to 
kill those who surrender to us. That's the difference 
between conditional surrender and unconditional surrender. 
We Klingons prefer the latter.

> >I suppose that it doesn't really get the "if" meaning across, does it ?
 
It doesn't.
 
> It's wrong in the sense that we already have "canon" for how it should be.
> What you have is grammatically correct, though.  And it may very well be
> because of that "if" concept that this wasn't used; that I can't tell you,
> but since I have now responded to this, it is open for the list in general
> to reply...
 
qatlho'.
 
> --tQ, who would kill for a spell-checker...

charghwI'

Back to archive top level