tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Mon May 16 05:17:22 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 ?

Lieven L. Litaer ([email protected]) [KLI Member] [Hol ghojwI']



note before:
Don't be surprised if I change my mind during my sentences, I'm just 
thinking aloud. Maybe my thoughts can be helpful in finding a way through 
the discussion. I'm also very interested about this, and I like to be 
convinced ;-)

Quvar.

ghItlh QeS lagh:

> . .. I'd thought that Quvar was implying that there was no way of making 
> sense of {X-chugh ngugh Y}. (My apologies if that's not what you meant, 
> Quvar.)

Oh yes, thanks. That's what I meant and still believe.
[not anymore now, see below]

What DloraH sounds right too [I find nothing about this question in TKD], 
one can certainly have two chuvmey in one sentence following each other. I 
guess nobody refuses {DaH bISuv DaneHchugh, vaj DaH yISuv}

So, some of you see the case {X-chugh ngugh Y} as in "if you don't blah, 
the next thing you do is blah." or so,; "In the moment in which you X (eg. 
surrender), you also Y (eg.die)"
I agree that makes sense, although I feel like there's something wrong.

From canon, {-chugh} and {vaj} are used very frequently both together and 
seperated.
[not canon: vaj is said to be redundant, because {-chugh} already implies 
"if...then".]
For {ghIq} and {ngugh}, they are all used standing alone, but we have too 
few examples to conclude that they *must* stand alone.

To import some more canon:
  "It is possible to join the sentences with a conjunction: wam chaH 'ej 
ghIq Soj luvut. They hunt and then they prepare food; tlhoy Sop 'ach ghIq 
Qongchu'. He/she eats too much, but then he/she sleeps soundly;"

Does this help anything? {vaj} is an adverb, not a conjunction.

There seem to be different questions in my mind now:
  1. can ngugh/ghIq follow an adverb (as it can a conjuntion)?
  2. can two adverbs follow each other?
  3. can a chughed sentence be followed by a time stamp?

1: It has never been prohibited, and if it can follow conjunctions, why not 
also adverbs?
2: chaq tugh batlh maHegh'a'??
3: if one can say that ngugh and ghIq be like other time stamps as DaH, 
not, tugh, which are adverbs, and vaj is redundant, I conclude that one can 
say {X-chugh ngugh Y}. This is what my first example was: {DaneHchugh, vaj 
DaH yISuv}.

Hm. I think I convinced myself now, I hope I'm not wrong. :-)

> The proverb was perhaps a bad example, since proverbs do tend to be 
> formulaic.

Yes, it is. We should take other, more general examples to make this clear.

> In conversation, though, it It's all about the context: no-one speaks in 
> a vacuum.

Indeed. Klingon is very context related.

Quvar.






Back to archive top level