tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Sat Aug 21 02:03:59 2004

Back to archive top level

To this year's listing

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

{pagh} (and {qoj}) may be like {'ej}

MorphemeAddict ([email protected]) [KLI Member] [Hol taghwI']

I no longer have any problem with {pagh} being appropriate in the ST6 line 
about attacking vs. subjugation.  (Although I listened to that line several 
times yesterday, and I heard (and fairly clearly) only {DIHIvbej qo'chajDaq 
toy'wI''a' DImoj.}) 
Perhaps the considerations I present here apply to {pagh} and {qoj}, as well 
as to {'ej}, since they are all sentences conjunctions.  

In the March 1999 "Maltz Online" (HQ v8n1p7-8), Okrand tells us more about 
the meaning of {'ej}.  

First he tells that {'ej} by itself has no temporal or sequential 
implications:

       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*). (pp. 7-8)

Then later on he tells us that it *may* have a sequential or cause-and-effect 
interpretation, but that it's a result of real-world considerations and not 
an inherent part of the meaning of the word:

       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. (p. 
8)

He finishes with: "In short, {'ej} is neutral as to time."

I understand this to mean that using {'ej}, and by extension {pagh} and 
{qoj}, say nothing about *how* the sentences they join are related, only that they 
*are* related.

lay'tel SIvten

Back to archive top level