tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Sun May 15 18:45:20 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 ?

Teresh000 ([email protected]) [KLI Member]



Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
In a message dated 5/14/2005 11:16:06 PM Central Daylight Time, 
[email protected] writes:
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'?
jIyaj, 'ach jIQoch. munuQqu' mu'tlheghvetlh. mu'tlheghDaq mu' {ngugh} Dachel,
'ach meq vIyajbe'. qatlh mu'vetlh lo'lu'? mu'vetlh DachelDI', chay' mu'tlhegh 
DaDub? 

-- ter'eS






Back to archive top level