tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Wed Oct 20 16:09:20 1999
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
Re: RE: RE: Mu'mey chu'
On Mon, 18 Oct 1999 18:16:00 -0700 "Andeen, Eric"
<[email protected]> 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}.
>
> jatlh charghwI':
> > I agree with SuStel that using {ghIq} with {-DI'} almost
> > certainly doesn't mean what you'd like it to mean.
>
> If you're talking about using <ghIq> with <-DI'>, then I don't understand
> why not.
qechvam vIqelta'DI' ghIq qechwIj vIDel vIneHchoH.
Hmmm. Maybe this works after all. It does seem a bit
superfluous, however. {-DI'} sets the time stamp of the action.
{ghIq} then tells you that the action follows after the time
stamp.
> > 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}.
>
> Dajqu'. vIparHa'law'. jIQubnIS . . .
>
> > 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.
>
> I don't see a problem with any of the following:
>
> nuHvetlh chonobchugh nuchvam vIHoHlaH
> nuHvetlh chonobchugh vaj nuchvam vIHoHlaH
> nuHvetlh chonobchugh ghIq nuchvam vIHoHlaH
> nuHvetlh chonobchugh vaj ghIq nuchvam vIHoHlaH
>
> All four follow the grammar that we know, and all four seem to make sense.
The last example does have two adverbials on the same clause.
This is not forbidden, but then it also doesn't exist in canon
and there is at least a thin argument against it:
Many of the verb suffixes function adverbially. The chuvmey
suited to act as an adverb could be seen in a similar way. You
can't use two verb suffixes of the same type. Adverbials may
function as a sort of detached affix type. There may very well
be only one place in a clause for an adverb.
This is total fiction, but then, so is the whole language. I'd
just like to see one example of two adverbs in a canon sentence,
or hear that it is not acceptable. Otherwise, it is simply
something Okrand has not thought about yet.
> 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}. . .
>
> jIjatlh:
> > 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.
>
> jatlh charghwI':
> > As I said, I agree with SuStel. {vaj} is never a
> > conjunction. It is an adverb. {jIghung. vaj jISop.}
>
> OK, to use a canon example: <nuHlIj DawIvpu', vaj yISuv!> (TKW page 151).
> This is either a case of weird punctuation (which is quoted along with the
> text) or of <vaj> as a conjunction. Either way, it means the same thing, so
> I will now choose to ignore the argument.
I would be interested to hear Okrand's comment on this.
> jIjatlh:
> > 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.
>
> jatlh charghwI':
> > Interesting questions. I wish I could begin a good
> > discussion, but I gave blood today, it is late and I'm
> > getting woozy...
>
> DopDaq qul yIchenmoH QobDI' ghu' . . .
>
>
> pagh
> Beginners' Grammarian
>
> tlhIngan Hol Mailing List FAQ
> http://www.bigfoot.com/~dspeers/klingon/faq.htm
charghwI' 'utlh