tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Fri Aug 20 10:34:36 2004
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
Re: pagh (Re: Klingon WOTD: toy'wI''a' (n))
On Fri, 20 Aug 2004 [email protected] wrote:
> In all of these examples, it doesn't matter which option comes first.
> The {pagh} relation is symmetric. The line from ST6 expresses a
> relation of cause and effect. However, if the line has {pagh}, then its
> relation is not symmetric. Attacking is given as a means of avoiding
> subjugation. If the two clauses are reversed and subjugation is
> assumed, then attacking is irrelevant. None of the other examples of
> {pagh} exhibit this kind of asymmetry and causal relation, but such
> relations with {-chugh} are numerous.
That's a really insightful observation, but I don't think it can actually
prove that just because none of the examples of the conjunction /pagh/
have a causal relationship means that you cannot infer a causal
relationship from it.
Arguably, you COULD reverse the ST6 quote and still have the intended
meaning:
DIHIvbej pagh qo'chajDaq toy'wI''a' DImoj
We certainly attack, or we will be slaves in their world.
qo'chajDaq toy'wI''a' DImoj pagh DIHIvbej
We will be slaves in their world, or we certainly attack.
I think this is still a symmetric relation, although the causal
relationship between them is a little less obvious. I think it depends on
the intention of the speaker -- The first form conveys a line of reasoning
of sorts. "We attack. Or (if we don't) we become slaves in their world".
The second form conveys more of an option, or a suggestion. "We become
slaves in their world. Or, we attack (to avoid that outcome)."
There is definitely a different emphasis and thus connotation to the two
orders, but I think the core concepts are still symmetric...
...Paul
** Have a question that reality just can't answer? **
** Visit Project Galactic Guide http://www.galactic-guide.com/ **
"I love it when a plan comes together."
![[KLI Member]](/pics/KLImemberbutton.gif "[KLI Member]"){kind=small}