tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Mon May 16 05:17:22 2005
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
Re: Subtle shadings of "then": Okrand's error ?
- From: "Lieven L. Litaer" <[email protected]>
- Subject: Re: Subtle shadings of "then": Okrand's error ?
- Date: Mon, 16 May 2005 14:21:05 +0200
- In-reply-to: <[email protected]>
- Organization: qepHom.de
- References: <[email protected]>
- User-agent: Opera7.11/Win32 M2 build 2887
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.