[tlhIngan Hol] Thoughts on {vaj}

[sustel at trimboli.name]

-mo’ as a verb suffix didn’t appear until the Addendum. I have a feeling vaj was considered good enough at the time.

-- 
SuStel
http://trimboli.name

From: mayqel qunenoS
Sent: Sunday, November 27, 2016 4:17 AM
To: tlhIngan Hol mailing list
Subject: [tlhIngan Hol] Thoughts on {vaj}

At another thread the {vaj} was discussed, and in particular its nature as an adverb. an adverb which describes the verb as an  effect/result of another (previous) action/situation.
example:
{pa' 'el 'avwI' vaj jISuvrupchoH}
the guard entered the room, so I became ready to fight.
so far so good..
I realized however that everything we can describe by the {vaj} can be described by the {-mo'}.
{pa' 'elmo' 'avwI', jISuvrupchoH}
because the guard entered the room, I became ready to fight.
again here we have the "my becoming ready to fight" being the result of the guard entering the room.
and perhaps one could go further to say that the meaning conveyed by the {vaj} is conveyed through various other means:
{pa' 'elDI' 'avwI', jISuvrupchoH}
{pa' 'el 'avwI', ghIq jISuvrupchoH}
{pa' 'el 'avwI', ngugh jISuvrupchoH}
the only difference between the {vaj}/{mo'} method, and the last three is perhaps that the {vaj}/{mo'} are more direct, while the rest only imply/indirectly mean that the guard's entrance to the room was the reason of my "becoming ready to fight".
so, that's my understanding of {vaj}. are my conclusions/observations correct ?
qunnoH jan puqloD
ghoghwIj HablI'vo' vIngeHta'

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.kli.org/pipermail/tlhingan-hol-kli.org/attachments/20161127/e042a4da/attachment-0017.htm>