<html xmlns:o="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" xmlns:w="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:word" xmlns:m="http://schemas.microsoft.com/office/2004/12/omml" xmlns="http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-html40"><head><meta http-equiv=Content-Type content="text/html; charset=utf-8"><meta name=Generator content="Microsoft Word 15 (filtered medium)"><style><!--
/* Font Definitions */
@font-face
{font-family:"Cambria Math";
panose-1:2 4 5 3 5 4 6 3 2 4;}
@font-face
{font-family:Calibri;
panose-1:2 15 5 2 2 2 4 3 2 4;}
/* Style Definitions */
p.MsoNormal, li.MsoNormal, div.MsoNormal
{margin:0in;
margin-bottom:.0001pt;
font-size:11.0pt;
font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;}
a:link, span.MsoHyperlink
{mso-style-priority:99;
color:blue;
text-decoration:underline;}
a:visited, span.MsoHyperlinkFollowed
{mso-style-priority:99;
color:#954F72;
text-decoration:underline;}
.MsoChpDefault
{mso-style-type:export-only;}
@page WordSection1
{size:8.5in 11.0in;
margin:1.0in 1.0in 1.0in 1.0in;}
div.WordSection1
{page:WordSection1;}
--></style></head><body lang=EN-US link=blue vlink="#954F72"><div class=WordSection1><p class=MsoNormal><b>-mo’</b> as a verb suffix didn’t appear until the Addendum. I have a feeling <b>vaj</b> was considered good enough at the time.</p><p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal>-- <br>SuStel<br>http://trimboli.name</p><p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p><div style='mso-element:para-border-div;border:none;border-top:solid #E1E1E1 1.0pt;padding:3.0pt 0in 0in 0in'><p class=MsoNormal style='border:none;padding:0in'><b>From: </b><a href="mailto:mihkoun@gmail.com">mayqel qunenoS</a><br><b>Sent: </b>Sunday, November 27, 2016 4:17 AM<br><b>To: </b><a href="mailto:tlhingan-hol@kli.org">tlhIngan Hol mailing list</a><br><b>Subject: </b>[tlhIngan Hol] Thoughts on {vaj}</p></div><p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p><p>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.</p><p>example:<br>{pa' 'el 'avwI' vaj jISuvrupchoH}<br>the guard entered the room, so I became ready to fight.</p><p>so far so good..</p><p>I realized however that everything we can describe by the {vaj} can be described by the {-mo'}.</p><p>{pa' 'elmo' 'avwI', jISuvrupchoH}<br>because the guard entered the room, I became ready to fight.</p><p>again here we have the "my becoming ready to fight" being the result of the guard entering the room.</p><p>and perhaps one could go further to say that the meaning conveyed by the {vaj} is conveyed through various other means:</p><p>{pa' 'elDI' 'avwI', jISuvrupchoH}<br>{pa' 'el 'avwI', ghIq jISuvrupchoH}<br>{pa' 'el 'avwI', ngugh jISuvrupchoH}</p><p>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".</p><p>so, that's my understanding of {vaj}. are my conclusions/observations correct ?</p><p>qunnoH jan puqloD<br>ghoghwIj HablI'vo' vIngeHta'</p><p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p></div></body></html>