ghunchu'wI':
The “adverb” kind of “so” doesn’t match the Klingon {vaj}. Look up “therefore” instead.
Ok, I looked it up, and yes, the English "therefore" matches my understanding of {vaj}. Thanks. SuStel:
I think what you have here is your usual habit of splicing sentences inside sentences. It just doesn't work here.
I rethought all this, and I understood that indeed you're right; I was trying to put one sentence into the other, even while I didn't realize I was trying to do that. But now I started wondering about something else. The way I understand a {-bogh} phrase, it's essentially a "miniature sentence", meaning that in front of it we can have everything that can be in front of the ovs. So far so good. And in the case where we have two {-bogh} phrases joined by a conjunction, then it's like having two "miniature sentences" joined by a conjunction, so -logically- we can have everything that can be in front of the ovs preceding each of the {-bogh} baby sentences. Or just one of them. So, why does the second {-bogh} miniature sentence always need to be understood as a parenthetical sentence? Suppose I write: yaS HoHpu' bombogh yan 'ej reH vuQbogh the officer was killed by the singing sword which always fascinates Or yaS HoHpu' bombogh yan 'ej ghIq ngabbogh the officer was killed by the sword which sings and subsequently vanishes I can understand and "feel" why in the {rIQchoHmoHbogh nuH ('ej} vaj 'oy'choHmoHbogh} the {vaj 'oy'choHmoHbogh} is a parenthetical miniature sentence. But in the singing sword examples I can't feel anything parenthetical in the second {-bogh}. So I guess the question is this: In the case of sentences as the ones already mentioned, is the second {-bogh} phrase to be always understood as a parenthetical phrase? Or the distinction between what is parenthetical and what isn't, is rather based on context instead of whether it's being preceded by an adverb? -- Dana'an https://sacredtextsinklingon.wordpress.com/ Ζεὺς ἦν, Ζεὺς ἐστίν, Ζεὺς ἔσσεται· ὦ μεγάλε Ζεῦ