tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Wed Sep 19 14:21:58 2001

Back to archive top level

To this year's listing



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

RE: philosophy (was Re: Pronouns



Andrew said:

	> taD, mightn't you want to take this opportunity to say something
to the 
	> taghwI'pu' about how vaj is an adverbial and can't be used to
string 
	> non-subordinate clauses like 'ej does? jIQub vaj jItaH... Doh.!@ 

SuStel replied:

	We're just shoving two sentences together, just like we do all the
time in 
	Klingon.  If you have a problem with it, stick a period in there:
/jIQub. 
	vaj jItaH./  You say the same thing.  And Klingon doesn't have
sentences as 
	much as it has verbal clauses anyway (for example, the "sentence
joining" 
	words actually join any verbal clauses, not just sentences).
Actually, 
	using /vaj/ like this makes more sense than the usual way we see
/vaj/ used: 
	/bIDIlbe'chugh vaj bIHegh/.  Here, the /vaj/ looks like it's
conjoining the 
	/bIDIlbe'chugh/ with the /bIHegh/, but an equally valid sentence
should be 
	/vaj bIHegh bIDIlbe'chugh/.  I wonder if Klingons would accept it as
valid, 
	even if it doesn't follow the standard formula. 

You're both right - technically, {vaj} ("thus, therefore") is an adverbial.
It doesn't actually join sentences in the way that {'ej}, {qoj}, {pagh}, and
{'ach} do.
If I want to say:
"I dropped the computer, so it broke"
this would technically be two sentences in Klingon, separated by a period,
semicolon, etc., or a pause in speech if you're talking:
{De'wI' vIchagh; vaj ghor} "I dropped the computer; therefore it broke."
They are two different sentences, just like something such as:
{jIghung; DaH HIje'} "I am hungry; feed me now."

I'm not sure what others think, but I can accept {vaj bIHegh bIDIlbe'chugh}
as a valid sentence. "Therefore you will die, if you do not pay."

- taD



Back to archive top level