tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Sat May 14 21:14:22 2005

Back to archive top level

To this year's listing

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

Re: Subtle shadings of "then": Okrand's error ?

QeS lagh ([email protected]) 

ghItlhpu' ter'eS:

>Wait a minute, now. As I pointed out, {bIje'be'chugh, vaj bIHegh} is
>_canon_.  There's never been any suggesiton until now that MO made a
>mistake with that phrase. You may not like (or understand) how he
>arrived at the construction, but it's canon.  It is true that {vaj}
>can be omitted, but there's no canon to indicate that it can be
>replaced.

You've missed my point, methinks. I didn't say "MO was wrong". I have no 
problem with saying {X-chugh vaj Y} - as you say, it's canon, and even if it 
weren't, it's no different to the redundant "then" that's found in the 
English "If X, then Y". All I was intending to say was that I don't find 
{bIjeghbe'chugh ngugh bIHegh} as wrong as Quvar does. In this particular 
situation, yes, it's incorrect, and I agree with you and Quvar on that: 
{bIjeghbe'chugh ngugh bIHegh} would be very wrong for this translation.

However, what I understood Quvar to be saying was that the form with {ngugh} 
didn't make sense in general, and I disagree: I think there are some 
situations (IOW, not this one) where {bIjeghbe'chugh ngugh bIHegh} is 
grammatical and sensible. {ngugh} isn't serving as a "replacement" for 
{vaj}, but as just another adverb *in addition to* {vaj}, which is optional 
anyway. If you replace {vaj} where it's been omitted, it makes perfect sense 
to me: {bIjeghbe'chugh vaj ngugh bIHegh} "if you do not surrender, then at 
that time you will die". DaH bIyaj'a'?

Savan,

QeS lagh
taghwI' pabpo' / Beginners' Grammarian


not nItoj Hemey ngo' juppu' ngo' je
(Old roads and old friends will never deceive you)
     - Ubykh Hol vIttlhegh

_________________________________________________________________
REALESTATE: biggest buy/rent/share listings   
http://ninemsn.realestate.com.au

Back to archive top level