tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Fri Nov 05 14:45:04 1999

Back to archive top level

To this year's listing



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

Re: jubluH'a'?



On 5 Nov 1999 03:00:46 -0000 "Mark E. Shoulson" <[email protected]> 
wrote:

> >From: "William H. Martin" <[email protected]>
> >Date: Tue, 2 Nov 1999 10:44:29 -0500 (Eastern Standard Time)
> >
> >On 2 Nov 1999 14:42:59 -0000 "Mark E. Shoulson" <[email protected]> 
> >wrote:
> >
> >...
> >> <***> I keep wishing for an "even" in Klingon (as in "even if...")
> >
> >X DaqellaH 'ach YtaH.
> 
> Feh.  I don't like this.  Something like "X 'ach Y" is okay for "even
> though" but not "even if".  "XlaH 'ach Y" is maybe okay, but still seems
> weak, and what are you supposed to do with "even if you can/could kill me,
> I won't/wouldn't join you"?

I should have been clearer with real examples.

"Even if you could kill me, I wouldn't join you."

choHoH 'e' DaHechlaH 'ach qamuvQo'.

choHoH 'e' DabuQlaH 'ach qamuvQo'.
 
> Actually, I thought of an interesting solution that I don't much like.  But
> it's interesting.  
> 
> We have the conjunction/adverbial "vaj", right?  (think about it for a bit;
> adverbials and sentence-conjunctions are very similar grammatically in
> Klingon: they go after one sentence and before another).  It means "in that
> case, thus, so."  It's optional after a -chugh sentence, just to stress the
> relationship better: if this happens, then in that case that happens.

~mark, there is no such thing as a {-chugh} sentence. Type 9 
suffixes create dependent clauses. {vaj} is an adverb, not a 
conjunction. It is never a conjunction. It never was. It never 
will be. Unless Okrand says so, of course. But I honestly thing 
you are mistaken if you consider a verb with {-chugh} forms a 
main clause.
 
> We can also use "vaj" without a -chugh sentence. 

Just like any other adverb.

> In that case, it still
> indicates something of a link, but a weaker one.  It's like a weaker form
> of putting a -mo' on the first sentence.  The "because" link isn't
> *claimed*, but it's referenced.  X, and thus Y; there's some weak causal
> relationship between them.

{vaj} is useful because it doesn't have to follow a specific 
sentence. It could follow an entire argument that might last 
half an hour. It is an adverbial. It presents the conclusion of 
a rational argument. That argument can be as simple as a 
dependent {-chugh} clause, or it can be as elaborate as a speech 
before the High Counsel.
 
> We also have "'ach", which means "however, but." 

This is a conjunction, not an adverb. Sometimes it is used like 
{'e'} is sometimes used, referring to a sentence someone else 
said, but just as {'e'} ties together two immediately adjacent 
sentences, so does {'ach}. In this way {'e'} acts as an odd 
conjunction that does not necessarily appear between the 
sentences. There can be words belonging to the second sentence 
which preceed {'e'}. It is a special case.

> That is, X 'ach Y means
> that X is true, and while you might think that makes Y false, despite that,
> Y is true as well. 

Logically, {'ach} and {'ej} have exactly the same meaning, but 
there is that connotation that the expectation that the second 
sentence would be false. I remember my surprise the first time I 
realized this about "and" and "but" back in symbolic logic 
classes in college. More than likely, Vulcan doesn't have a word 
for "but" and it gets along just fine without it.

> It's sort of like the opposite of "vaj", indicating not
> an "and" that would be expected due to an underlying semi-causal link, but
> "and" that is unexpected due to being counter to an underlying link.

This would be an interesting conclusion if indeed {-chugh} 
didn't make a clause dependent and if {vaj} really were a 
conjunction, but both of these premises are false. It's a pity. 
Your line of logic is quite interesting, even though the 
premises don't work.

> "'ach" thus works okay (if weakly) for "even though X, Y", but not "even
> if".

One can X, but YtaH.
 
> What if we use 'ach after a -chugh sentence?  "if X, then even so, Y" by
> that logic.  It works for "even if."  Interesting, no?

There's no such creature as a {-chugh} sentence.
 
> I don't like it either.  But it's interesting anyway.  And at any rate,
> it's still pretty weak.

Very weak. Interesting, though.
 
> ~mark

charghwI'



Back to archive top level