I don’t get {‘e’ vIwIvmo’.} SAO, as I’ve always understood it, consists of two complete sentences linked by the pronoun. The second sentence here is a dependent clause. Maybe this is just informal speech, but it seems ungrammatical, as if this is proper grammar for answering a question, but I’m not sure that’s the case. Consider in English the difference between two answers to “Why are you sad?”: 1. "Because my nephew just died." 2. “My nephew just died.” The first version doesn’t add any meaning, and it’s not really grammatically complete. Any answer to a “Why” question is already known to be a reason, so you don’t need to begin it with “Because…” As a side note, my nephew just shot himself. I don’t know if truth is stranger than fiction, but it competes admirably well. Also, instead of {QIpwI’pu’mo’ jIghoHbe’}, I’d go for, {ghoHDI’ QIpwI’pu’, jIjeSQo’}. It just seems clearer as to what my action is. It leaves me the option of actually arguing when those who argue are not fools, whereas if I say that I don’t argue BECAUSE of fools, then since fools perpetually exist, I never get to argue. But I get the joke. ghojwI’Hom: nuq ‘oH bIQuchtaHmeH mIwlIj’e'? ghojmoHwI’’a’: ghoHDI’ qoHpu’, jIjeSQo'. ghojwI’Hom: QIpchu' Qechvam. ghojmoHwI’’a’: bIlugh. maQochbe’chu’. charghwI’ vaghnerya’ngan rInpa’ bomnIS be’’a’ pI’.
On Jul 8, 2019, at 2:28 AM, Lieven L. Litaer <levinius@gmx.de> wrote:
After I saw this as an internet meme, it has been in my mind for so long...
- chay' bIQuchtaH? - QIpwI'pu'mo' jIghoHbe' 'e' vIwIvmo'. - 'ach Dap 'oH mIwvetlh. - bIlugh.
- What is your way to happiness? - Not to argue with idiots. - But that's nonsense. - You are right.
-- Lieven L. Litaer aka the "Klingon Teacher from Germany" http://www.klingonisch.de http://www.klingonwiki.net/En/StarTrekDiscovery _______________________________________________ tlhIngan-Hol mailing list tlhIngan-Hol@lists.kli.org http://lists.kli.org/listinfo.cgi/tlhingan-hol-kli.org