tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Fri Jul 18 16:05:39 2003
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
Re: Using New Words
Voragh opined:
> > DaH DorchoH yInwIj bertlham 'ej vaj vIqaDnIS
> > now the (very) end of my life comes to an end and so I must face it
> >
> > DaH DorchoH yInwIj 'ej vaj bertlhamDaj vIqaD
> > now my life comes to an end and so I face it's end
> >
> > DaH DorchoH yInwIj 'ej tugh bertlhamDaj vIqaDnIS
> > now my life comes to an end and soon I must face it's end
> >
> > Okay, the two "ends" are repetitive in English but it sounds better in
> > Klingon.
> >
> > Hmm... for some reason {'ej vaj} "and so" feels redundant in Klingon (but
> > not in English). You might just use {vaj} alone.
SuStel reacted:
>No! /vaj/ is not a sentence conjunction, it's an adverbial. If you're
>joining sentences, you must use /'ej/ (or another sentence conjunction).
Not necessarily. Look at these examples where - to me at least - {vaj} has
the "feel" of a conjunction, even if it is not so labelled in TKD:
nuHlIj DawIvpu', vaj yISuv
You have chosen your weapon, so fight! TKW
De'vetlh vIQoy, vaj jIQuch
I am happy to hear that information. KGT
qaSuchlaHbe'. jIpaSqu' vaj narghpu' 'eb.
I cannot visit you. I am very late, thus the opportunity has escaped
("I was too late to visit you.") (st.klingon)
Notice that {vaj} comes between the two verbs, without {'ej} or any other
conjunction.
>I don't see anything redundant here. /'ej/, according to Okrand, has no
>meaning beyond stating multiple sentences together.
I remember that discussion on startrek.klingon on 3/20/1998. (I've
appended Okrand's response below for those interested.) Even so, in all
sixteen examples I'm aware of {'ej} and {vaj} have never been used
together, except for
qorDu' SaHlu'chugh 'ej matlhlu'chugh vaj wa' tlhIngan ghob potlhqu'
devotion and loyalty to family is one of the most important Klingon
virtues. S13
and that seems to be because there are two introductory {-chugh}
clauses. In fact, following a dependent {-chugh} clause is one of the two
most common ways to use {vaj}. The other is to use {vaj} to begin a new
sentence.
--------------------------------------------------------
From: Marc Okrand <mokrand@ ...>
Newsgroups: startrek.klingon
Date: Fri, 20 Mar 1998
Subject: Re: 'ej and sequence (for Dr. Okrand)
Marc Paige wrote ...
>There has been some discussion lately about whether or not the conjunction
><'ej> has or does not have and sequential aspects. I agree with those that
>say that the sequencial nature of a joined phrases depends on the context
>of the phrases taken as a whole. This is the same way I treat 'and' in
>English. Do you have any words of wisdom to settle this dust up?
As far as I know, <'ej> means "and" in the sense of "in addition," "also,"
"as well as," and the like. It does not have any temporal or sequential
implications. That is, it does not (by itself) mean "and then."
For example, Klingon <jISop 'ej jItlhutlh> "I eat and I drink" means "I eat
and also I drink." It could refer to events that occur in alternating fashion
(eat some, drink some, eat some, drink some more) or, especially in the case
of some Klingons, events that occur pretty much simultaneously. It could
also mean "I eat and then I drink," but it does not necessarily mean that.
If that is the intended meaning (and if being a little vague or ambiguous or
unclear will cause misunderstanding and hence discomfort), additional stuff
must be added or the whole thing must be rephrased to make the meaning
explicit (such as <jItlhutlhpa' jISop> "before I drink, I eat".
Similarly, the most likely interpretation of <jItlhutlh 'ej jIQong> "I drink
and I sleep" is not that I drink in my sleep (though it could be used for
that if I really did it), but rather simply "I drink and also I sleep," a
listing of two things I do, presumably (but not explicitly) not at the same
time.
Then there's <qaDuQ 'ej bIregh> "I stab you and you bleed". It probably would
be used when the stabbing precedes (and is the direct cause of) the bleeding.
But it doesn't explicitly say that; it only says "I stab you" and it also says
"you bleed." The sequential interpretation (and/or the cause-and-effect
interpretation) is due to the way the world works. Or some worlds.
Since it is possible to say either <jISop, jItlhutlh> "I eat, I drink" or
<jISop 'ej jItlhutlh. "I eat and I drink" to refer to the same thing, it
might seem as though <'ej> is optional. Grammatically, that's fair to
say. In terms of meaning, however, when <'ej> is used, it adds something;
it emphasizes or points out some sort of connection between the two events
-- though not necessarily a temporal one.
Finally, although I've been referring to "events," the same holds for
states and conditions and the like. Thus, <jIghung 'ej jIQeH> "I'm hungry
and I'm angry" could be used if first I'm hungry and then (whether as a
result of the pangs or not) I get angry, or if I'm hungry and angry at the
same time, or if I waver between the two.
In short, <'ej> is neutral as to time.
--
Voragh
Ca'Non Master of the Klingons