[tlhIngan Hol] vaj and meqvammo' difference

[Will Martin]

The stuff that precedes {vaj} provides context for what follows it. That context does not need to be a “reason”.

Valkris says that Kruge will find the data useful. How does she know this? She must have seen the data. “Thus, you have seen it.” The data being useful is not the REASON she has seen it. She is merely providing unintentional evidence that she has seen it. The statement that she thinks it will be useful provides a context from which Kruge concludes that she has seen it.

“One of the hostages is a Klingon” is not a reason the Federation will be sending a rescue ship of its own. The Klingon is probably an exception to the reason the Federation is sending the rescue ship. They probably wouldn’t specifically seek to rescue a Klingon, but they would send a rescue ship for the others. Still, given the context that there are federation people among the hostages, one can conclude that the Federation will be sending a rescue ship.

In a conditional statement, you set up a condition that is context for what follows {vaj}. It might be a reason, or it might not be a reason.

In logic, we learn that “if/then” statements are true regardless of the outcome if the condition is false, but only true if the “then” part is true if the “if” part is true.

tlhoy bIjatlhchugh vaj qaqIp.

If you talk too much, then I will hit you. I might hit you if you don’t talk too much, too, but there’s no way you are going to talk too much and not have me hit you. You talking too much may or may not be the reason that I hit you, since I might hit you, even if you don’t talk too much. I could hit you for some other reason. Your talking too much is merely a context that is strongly linked to me hitting you.

Likely, I already have a reason to hit you, like maybe you broke up with my beloved sister and she is heartbroken, but I’m willing to put that aside if you don’t talk too much, since I could ignore you if you don’t talk too much, but if it becomes impossible to ignore you, I will punch you, for my other, unstated reason.

{-mo’} is for reasons. {vaj} is for statements derived from preceding context.

qaQaHta’’a’? bImIStaH’a’?

charghwI’ vaghnerya’ngan

rInpa’ bomnIS be’’a’ pI’.




> On Oct 9, 2020, at 8:39 AM, mayqel qunen'oS <mihkoun at gmail.com> wrote:
> 
> ST3:
>> Valkris: Qu'vaD lI' net tu'bej. "You will find it useful."
>> Kruge: vaj Daleghpu'. "Then you have seen it?"
> ST5:
>> tlhIngan ghaH wa' vub'e'. "One of the hostages is a Klingon."
>> [...]
>> vaj toDDujDaj ngeHbej DIvI'. "That means the Federation will be sending
>> a rescue ship of its own."
> SuStel:
>> Good examples. vaj can spring
>> from a concept that isn't a reason for whatever follows the vaj.
> 
> De'vam vIyajlaHbe'. De'vam DaQIjqang'a' ?
> 
> ~ Qa'yIn
> _______________________________________________
> tlhIngan-Hol mailing list
> tlhIngan-Hol at lists.kli.org
> http://lists.kli.org/listinfo.cgi/tlhingan-hol-kli.org

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.kli.org/pipermail/tlhingan-hol-kli.org/attachments/20201009/ba337317/attachment.htm>