tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Mon Sep 24 00:07:20 2001

Back to archive top level

To this year's listing



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

RE: philosophy (was Re: Pronouns



> -----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'



Back to archive top level