Re: RE: Mu'mey chu'

["William H. Martin" <whm2m@virginia.edu>]

On Wed, 13 Oct 1999 18:17:12 -0700 "Andeen, Eric" 
<Eric.Andeen@Sequencia.com> wrote:

> 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}.

I agree with SuStel that using {ghIq} with {-DI'} almost 
certainly doesn't mean what you'd like it to mean. 
Meanwhile, I'm pondering something and I think I'd like to 
have others either confirm or deny that the following is a 
good idea. I suspect that a {-chugh} based dependent clause 
could use either {vaj} or {ghIq} depending upon whether the 
main clause is describing the logical conclusion (vaj} or 
merely a sequential necessity (ghIq}.

Contrast the following:

bIjeghbe'chugh vaj bIHegh.

nuHvetlh chonobchugh ghIq nuchvam vIHoHlaH.

In the first, if the condition is satisfied, the logical 
conclusion will be true. It makes for a logical grid:
           You buy:
You Die:   Yes      No
  Yes      True    True
   No      True    False

If you don't buy thus you die.

In the second one the conditional is setting up the event 
which must preceed the action of the main clause.

If you give me that weapon, subsequently I can kill this 
coward.
 
> 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.

As I said, I agree with SuStel. {vaj} is never a 
conjunction. It is an adverb. {jIghung. vaj jISop.}

> 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.
 
Interesting questions. I wish I could begin a good 
discussion, but I gave blood today, it is late and I'm 
getting woozy...
 
> pagh
> Beginners' Grammarian
> 
> tlhIngan Hol Mailing List FAQ
> http://www.bigfoot.com/~dspeers/klingon/faq.htm

----------------------
charghwI' 'utlh