tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Thu Oct 04 11:31:45 2001
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
RE: KLBC: vaj
This is quite the disjointed stream...
> -----Original Message-----
> From: [email protected]
> [mailto:[email protected]]On Behalf Of Jiri Baum
> Sent: Wednesday, October 03, 2001 2:21 AM
> To: [email protected]
> Subject: Re: KLBC: vaj
>
>
> > > > > jup yIjatlh vaj yI'el
> > > > > speak friend and enter
This looks more like, "Say, 'friend' thus enter." There are a couple
problems with it. Remember that {vaj} is an adverb, not a conjunction. Same
for {ghIq}. Either of these would work:
jup yIjatlh. ghIq yI'el.
jup yIjatlh 'ej ghIq yI'el.
You can't treat {vaj} or {ghIq} like a conjunction just because you want to.
All too often, people think these adverbs are conjunctions because they look
at an example like {bIjeghbe'chugh vaj bIHegh} and think that is an example
of two sentences connected by a conjunction. Meanwhile, the first verb is
not a sentence. It is a dependent clause. This is why it is equally
grammatical to say {bIjeghbe'chugh bIHegh} and {bIjeghbe'chugh vaj bIHegh.}
The {vaj} never was a conjunction. It is just an adverb. Like any other
adverb, you can choose to add it in order to add a descriptive element to
the verb.
> ...
> > Jiri's version does this too, but why change the position of
> /jup/ "friend"?
>
> Not sure why I did that, probably mostly because of the first rule of
> Anime Japanese: the word order in Japanese is exactly the oposite of
> English :-)
If you mean to issue a command for someone to say the word {jup}, then this
is a rare instance in which the word order doesn't matter. {yIjatlh jup} and
{jup yIjatlh} mean exactly the same thing. If you instead mean "Speak,
friend, and enter," with "friend" being an appositional reference to the
person being addressed, then it should be {yIjatlh, jupwI', 'ej ghIq yI'el.}
> ...
> > /ghIq yI'el/ is simple enough: "and then enter." /ghIq/ is found on the
> > KLI's New Words List. I agree that /vaj/ is not entirely
> appropriate here.
> > It IS possible to squish Klingon sentences together, especially
> with /vaj/,
No, it is not. You can't just use adverbs as if they were conjunctions.
Unless Okrand does, of course...
> > but one imperative does not logically lead to another.
>
> Point; I'd have to say ((yIjatlh jup vaj Da'ellaH)) for it to make
> sense, and that wouldn't be true to the original at all.
You'd also be misusing an adverb as if it were a conjunction.
> Jiri <[email protected]>
charghwI'