tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Mon Sep 24 00:07:20 2001
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
RE: philosophy (was Re: Pronouns
- From: "Will Martin" <[email protected]>
- Subject: RE: philosophy (was Re: Pronouns
- Date: Mon, 24 Sep 2001 00:57:29 -0400
- Importance: Normal
- In-Reply-To: <[email protected]>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]]
> Sent: Wednesday, September 19, 2001 9:16 AM
> To: [email protected]
> Subject: Re: philosophy (was Re: Pronouns
...
> > > Consider: "jIQub, vaj jItaH"...
> > Actually,
> > using /vaj/ like this makes more sense than the usual way we see /vaj/
> > used: /bIDIlbe'chugh vaj bIHegh/.
>
> I agree here. I've never liked seeing vaj after -chugh. vaj is
> defined as
> more than just "then". Sure, many times the sentence does work;
> but to me -
> chugh doesn't need it. It's redundent.
I think it is in part a matter of style. I've always LIKED {vaj} after
{-chugh}. It marks the condition vs consequence nicely, and in some rare
cases, it can clear up ambiguity. {je'be'chugh Hegh} could be a partial
sentence "If death does not buy something..." or it could mean "If he
doesn't buy something, he dies." {je'be'chugh vaj Hegh} more clearly has the
latter meaning.
Of course, I guess it could mean, "If a warrior doesn't buy something, he
dies." Or even, "If a warrior doesn't feed something, then it dies."
Okay, so it DOESN'T clear up ambiguity. Oh well...
> DloraH
charghwI'