tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Thu Oct 14 19:53:14 1999

Back to archive top level

To this year's listing

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

Re: Mu'mey chu'

jatlh pagh:

> 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

jIghung; vaj jISop.

These are two separate sentences.  {vaj} is not a conjunction.

> 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'

I see no flaw with this.  {'uQ DaSopchugh} and {'uQ DaSopDI'} are simply
subordinate clauses to {vaj/ghIq yuch DaSop net chaw'}.  However, if you
accept this analysis, then {ghIq} in the second sentence should logically
refer to something said BEFORE {'uQ DaSoppu'DI'}.

Let me use some simpler sentences for comparison.  The following two
sentences should be identical in meaning, strictly speaking.

'uQ DaSoppu'DI' ghIq yuch DaSop.
ghIq yuch DaSop 'uQ DaSoppu'DI'.

Unfortunately, the meaning of this seems to be, "Subsequently, you eat
chocolate when you have eaten dinner."  It doesn't mean what you wanted it
to mean.

Stardate 99786.6

Back to archive top level