<html>
<head>
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=UTF-8">
</head>
<body>
<div class="moz-cite-prefix">On 7/20/2022 9:31 AM, D qunen'oS wrote:<br>
</div>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:CAP7F2cJaZVe00pLRhr245SqBFTbVSgVRP3Ts7OqZZ+vm51Nw6g@mail.gmail.com">
<div>The thing I observe is that the examples of Merriam-Webster
where the English "so" functions as a conjunction, are the
examples which if I was to translate in Klingon I'd use the
{vaj}; but the {vaj} in Klingon is supposed to be an adverb and
not a conjunction. On the other hand, I don't think any of the
Merriam-Webster examples where "so" acts as an adverb could be
translated by the Klingon adverb {vaj}.</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>So, either there's something here which I'm serious
misunderstanding, or this is the case of another intentional
attempt, to "alienize" a language crawling with terran puns.</div>
</blockquote>
<p>The grammar is simply different.</p>
<p>In an English sentence like <i>Be quiet so he can sleep, </i>you
have two independent clauses: <i>be quiet</i> and <i>he can
sleep.</i> The word <i>so</i> joins them together with a
connotation of purpose.<br>
</p>
<p>In Klingon, there are two ways to translate this. One is <b>QonglaHmeH
ghaH, yItam'eghmoH,</b> and this is probably the more accurate
translation, but this is not what we're talking about.</p>
<p>The other way to translate is is <b>yItam'eghmoH; vaj QonglaH
ghaH.</b> This is two sentences, not one. The <b>vaj</b> is not
a conjunction: it is an adverbial, telling us the manner in which
the action occurs. It tells us that the ability to sleep occurs in
the manner of a consequence. An alternative English translation of
this Klingon might be <i>Be quiet! He will be able to sleep as a
result.</i></p>
<pre class="moz-signature" cols="72">--
SuStel
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="http://trimboli.name">http://trimboli.name</a></pre>
</body>
</html>