tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Sat Aug 21 23:11:39 2004

Back to archive top level

To this year's listing

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

RE: pagh (Re: Klingon WOTD: toy'wI''a' (n))

Dr. Jeremy DM Cowan ([email protected]) 

-----Original Message-----
From: ...Paul

>> 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.

I don't think anyone is saying that <pagh> can't be used for a "causal"
relationship.  It's a question of style, not semantics.  Okrand prefers
not to use <pagh> for "causal" relationships, only for "symmetrical"
relationships.  For "causal" relationships he prefers to use <-chugh>
and seems to avoid <pagh>.  But I don't think anyone could support an
argument that it's the ONLY way to do it.

The question was exactly how a line was spoken in a movie.  Given that
the line was written by Okrand, the line was one with an apparent
"causal" relationship, and we know that Okrand prefers <-chugh> for
"causal" relationship, I think we have pretty strong evidence that the
line was the <-chugh> version.  Okrand could have written it with
<pagh>, but I would be very surprised if he did.

Jeremy

Back to archive top level