RE: Mu'mey chu'

["Andeen, Eric" <Eric.Andeen@Sequencia.com>]

jatlh charghwI':
> : ghIq - then, subsequently (adv). Note that this is not a 
> : conjunction, though you can use it in conjunction with a 
> : conjunction [grin]. You can't join sentences with it alone. Use 
> : it like any other adverbial. It only refers to the sequential 
> : sense of "then".

jatlh Voragh:
> A sequential "then" is something we've needed to supplement {-DI'}.
> Examples of {ghIq} would be helpful though.  How is it different from
{vaj}
> in context?  We know that {vaj} is used in "if...then" statements when the
> "then" clause is a consequence or result of the "if" clause -- e.g.
> {bIjeghbe'chugh vaj bIHegh}.

jatlh charghwI':
> Sometimes {vaj} is used just like any other adverb. It begins 
> a sentence. When this happens, {ghIq} is used the same way. It 
> is an adverb and it begins a sentence. Meanwhile, {vaj} is 
> also used to connect a main clause to the preceeding dependent 
> clause with {-chugh} on that dependent clause's verb. There is 
> no parallel to this with {ghIq}. . .

DaH maQoch. <vaj> can be used as a conjunction between to *main* clauses
(e.g. <jIghung vaj jISop>), and <ghIq> explicitly does *not* work for this.
When <vaj> is used with a <-chugh> (or maybe <-mo'>) clause, though, it's
acting just like a plain old adverbial, and there is no grammatical reason
<ghIq> can't behave the same way with a <-DI'> clause:

'uQ DaSopchugh vaj yuch DaSop net chaw'
'uQ DaSoppu'DI' ghIq yuch DaSop net chaw'

Whether Klingons ever use <ghIq> with <-DI'> clauses or <vaj> with <-mo'>
clauses is an entirely different question. I think both make sense, but I
wasn't born on Qo'noS.


pagh
Beginners' Grammarian

tlhIngan Hol Mailing List FAQ
http://www.bigfoot.com/~dspeers/klingon/faq.htm