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’.
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.dehttp://www.klingonwiki.net/En/StarTrekDiscovery
_______________________________________________
tlhIngan-Hol mailing list
tlhIngan-Hol@lists.kli.org
http://lists.kli.org/listinfo.cgi/tlhingan-hol-kli.org