ghunchu'wI':

Second, if you can't translate {vaj} as "thus",
you're probably using it wrong. I think you're using it wrong.

You're right. After reading the replies of you and SuStel, I
understood why {vaj} can't be used this way.

And your comment reminded me something which someone had written to
this list quite some time ago, regarding the use of klingon words with
multiple meanings.

Someone had said, that whenever there's a klingon word with multiple
english meanings, then one way to see if you're using it correctly is
to check whether *each* of  its' english definitions would make sense
for the purpose you want to use it.

That's true, but it's a little more than just substituting in each of the words in the gloss to see if the sentence is still grammatical. What you need to do is see what concept all of the words have in common and understand that as the meaning of the Klingon word.

So when you see a gloss like vaj so, then, thus, in that case, the important thing to see is that what these glosses have in common is coming to a conclusion based on some prior statement. That's what vaj means, regardless of how you translate it into English.

So, (in our current case of {vaj}), unless it can be translated as
"thus" too, then its' use is obviously wrong.

However some time later, in another thread someone had suggested that
this approach can only be applied to klingon words with multiple
meanings which "overlap" each other; i.e. {vaj}, {Haw'} "flee/get
out", {tur} "carry out, conduct (a mission), perform (duties)", etc.

But when it came to klingon words with multiple definitions which
don't overlap, then one could use such a word to express only one of
its' english definitions, and context would clarify what exactly it is
that he actually means.

For example {ghargh} "serpent, worm"; there's no "overlap" between a
serpent (e.g. snake) and a worm, meaning that a creature can't
simultaneously be both a snake *and* a worm. But two people could use
the {ghargh}, one to say {'up gharghmey}, and another {mughIj
gharghmey} with the context clarifying that -in the first case- it is
worms which one finds disgusting, while in the second case the speaker
is describing his fear of serpents.

You're missing the point that serpents and worms have a number of characteristics in common. Their shape and their movement are similar.

Did you know that the modern English word worm used to mean serpent, snake, dragon, reptile? That's why you'll sometimes hear dragons called worms or wyrms. (Dragons were also depicted as snake-like more often back then than they are now.) The word worm (formerly spelled wurm or wyrm) used to mean exactly what the Klingon word ghargh means.

So there is overlap between serpents and worms. I believe Okrand has even commented on this word, saying that originally he meant ghargh to mean anything like a serpent or a worm, just like the Old English word, but that when writers for Star Trek: The Next Generation writing the episode "A Matter of Honor" wanted a word for their newly invented plate of worms, they found ghargh, coached the actors to mispronounce it as gakh, and failed to notice the comma in the gloss, coming up with the new thing called serpent worms. Okrand later retrofit this mistake as qagh, accounting for both the mispronunciation and the wrong meaning. I don't have a citation for this information.

Anyways, I don't know how many people would actually agree with the
above way of approaching "multiple meaning klingon words", but I'm
sharing this because I find it to be an interesting approach, which
has helped me on numerous occasions make a choice as to which klingon
word I'd use and how.

It's a good way to approach it, provided you remember that you're not just substituting words but looking for the central concept that all parts of a gloss point to.

-- 
SuStel
http://trimboli.name