{vaj} {meqvammo'} bopbogh vay''e' vIyajbe'. vaj = so, then, thus, in that case meqvammo' = because of this reason jIjatlh vIneH: "I was hungry so I ordered a pizza". jIghungpu'; vaj pItSa' vIvunpu' jIghungpu'; meqvammo' pItSa' vIvunpu'. chay' pIm cha' mu'tlheghvam ? ~ Qa'yIn
I’ve always used {vaj} for conditional {-chugh} statements. There are many possible cases. If X is the case, {vaj} Y. I’d more simply say {jIghungpu’mo’ pItSa vIvun.} That doesn’t make me right and you wrong. I’m just offering a perspective to consider. bIghungchugh vaj pItSa DavunlaH. charghwI’ vaghnerya’ngan rInpa’ bomnIS be’’a’ pI’.
On Oct 6, 2020, at 9:38 AM, mayqel qunen'oS <mihkoun@gmail.com> wrote:
{vaj} {meqvammo'} bopbogh vay''e' vIyajbe'.
vaj = so, then, thus, in that case meqvammo' = because of this reason
jIjatlh vIneH: "I was hungry so I ordered a pizza".
jIghungpu'; vaj pItSa' vIvunpu' jIghungpu'; meqvammo' pItSa' vIvunpu'.
chay' pIm cha' mu'tlheghvam ?
~ Qa'yIn _______________________________________________ tlhIngan-Hol mailing list tlhIngan-Hol@lists.kli.org http://lists.kli.org/listinfo.cgi/tlhingan-hol-kli.org
On 10/6/2020 9:38 AM, mayqel qunen'oS wrote:
{vaj} {meqvammo'} bopbogh vay''e' vIyajbe'.
vaj = so, then, thus, in that case meqvammo' = because of this reason
jIjatlh vIneH: "I was hungry so I ordered a pizza".
jIghungpu'; vaj pItSa' vIvunpu' jIghungpu'; meqvammo' pItSa' vIvunpu'.
chay' pIm cha' mu'tlheghvam ?
Before I get to the main point, your use of perfective here is incorrect. *jIghungpu'* describes the completed state of you being hungry. If your hunger were completed, you would not need to order pizza, because you would no longer be hungry. *jIghung; vaj pItSa' chab vIvunpu'. jIghungmo', pItSa' chab vIvunpu'.* These are the "standard" ways to say this. The use of *vaj* came with the first edition of /The Klingon Dictionary;/ the *-mo'* verb suffix came with the second edition. (I've sometimes wondered if there were no *-mo'* in the first edition because you could do the same thing with *vaj.*) *meqvammo'* does mean what you say it means, but it's not some formulaic way that Klingons have to show cause and effect. I think it's based on something you probably say habitually in Greek or English. The two sentences *vaj pItSa' chab vIvunpu'* and *meqvammo' chab vIvunpu'* differ only in that one employs an adverbial to show a logical link and one employs a subordinate clause. -- SuStel http://trimboli.name
One would think that by now, I’d have the perfective down. I’m not trying to argue here. I trust your understanding of the perfective and want your advice to steer me away from my thinking. I was starting with “Because I had been hungry, I ordered pizza.” The ordering was simple past, so not perfective. The hunger, within the time setting of ordering the pizza, was a level farther into the past. To some extent, both the ordering of the pizza and my hunger are now complete, since I ordered and ate the pizza. Please clarify. I tend to renew my understanding of the perfective after your explanations and I thank you in advance. charghwI’ vaghnerya’ngan rInpa’ bomnIS be’’a’ pI’.
On Oct 6, 2020, at 9:59 AM, SuStel <sustel@trimboli.name> wrote:
On 10/6/2020 9:38 AM, mayqel qunen'oS wrote:
{vaj} {meqvammo'} bopbogh vay''e' vIyajbe'.
vaj = so, then, thus, in that case meqvammo' = because of this reason
jIjatlh vIneH: "I was hungry so I ordered a pizza".
jIghungpu'; vaj pItSa' vIvunpu' jIghungpu'; meqvammo' pItSa' vIvunpu'.
chay' pIm cha' mu'tlheghvam ? Before I get to the main point, your use of perfective here is incorrect. jIghungpu' describes the completed state of you being hungry. If your hunger were completed, you would not need to order pizza, because you would no longer be hungry.
jIghung; vaj pItSa' chab vIvunpu'. jIghungmo', pItSa' chab vIvunpu'.
These are the "standard" ways to say this. The use of vaj came with the first edition of The Klingon Dictionary; the -mo' verb suffix came with the second edition. (I've sometimes wondered if there were no -mo' in the first edition because you could do the same thing with vaj.)
meqvammo' does mean what you say it means, but it's not some formulaic way that Klingons have to show cause and effect. I think it's based on something you probably say habitually in Greek or English.
The two sentences vaj pItSa' chab vIvunpu' and meqvammo' chab vIvunpu' differ only in that one employs an adverbial to show a logical link and one employs a subordinate clause.
-- SuStel http://trimboli.name <http://trimboli.name/>_______________________________________________ tlhIngan-Hol mailing list tlhIngan-Hol@lists.kli.org http://lists.kli.org/listinfo.cgi/tlhingan-hol-kli.org
Okay, I put a lot of work into this, so please do read it carefully. On 10/6/2020 10:07 AM, Will Martin wrote:
One would think that by now, I’d have the perfective down.
I’m not trying to argue here. I trust your understanding of the perfective and want your advice to steer me away from my thinking. I was starting with “Because I had been hungry, I ordered pizza.” The ordering was simple past, so not perfective. The hunger, within the time setting of ordering the pizza, was a level farther into the past.
To some extent, both the ordering of the pizza and my hunger are now complete, since I ordered and ate the pizza.
Please clarify. I tend to renew my understanding of the perfective after your explanations and I thank you in advance.
You do not understand that perfective is not the same as perfect. English has a lot of tenses. Here are a few relevant ones. /I order pizza./ Simple present tense. /I have ordered pizza./ Present perfect tense. /I ordered pizza./ Simple past tense. /I had ordered pizza./ Past perfect tense, also called pluperfect./ I will order pizza./ Simple future tense. /I will have ordered pizza./ Future perfect tense. The simple tenses tell you which direction in time from the moment of speaking the action takes place./ / /I order pizza./ Simple present tense. The ordering happens as I say this sentence. /I ordered pizza./ Simple past tense. The ordering happened before I said this sentence. /I will order pizza./ Simple future tense. The order will happen after I say this sentence. The perfect tenses tell you which direction in time relative to a reference event the action takes place. /By 3:00, I had ordered pizza./ Pluperfect. The order happened before 3:00, which was before now. /By 3:00, I will have ordered pizza./ Future perfect. The order will happen before 3:00, which has not happened yet. Sometimes the moment of speaking and the reference event are the same moment. /Now I have ordered pizza./ Present perfect. The reference event /now/ is the same as the moment of speaking, and the order happened before now. What's true for all of these is that the tense tells you in which direction of time the event occurs relative to some other event. This is the function of tense. Aspect, on the other hand, doesn't tell you in which direction of time an event occurs. Aspect tells you the shape of an event. It tells you how the event occurred and how you're looking at it. Aspect tells you things like whether an action is unchanging or continuous or instantaneous or having an abrupt start or having an abrupt ending or being repetitive or being habitual or being timeless. It doesn't tell you WHEN the action happened, just HOW it happened and how YOU are viewing it. It is VERY IMPORTANT at this point to keep firmly in your mind that aspect does note tell you ANYTHING about which direction in time an event is relative to now or a reference point. Klingon has four aspect suffixes. One of these is *-pu'.//*It means /perfective./ It means the action has a specific shape: it is a completed action, and you are viewing it from a point after it is completed. It is an action described as having an end point, and it is being viewed from after that endpoint has been reached. (Notice that your VIEWPOINT is not the same as NOW or even a reference event. It is simply imagining yourself at a point on the timeline after the event such that you can look back at it and see that it is completed.) *pItSa' chab vIvunpu'.*//An order of pizza takes place. I am placing the listener at a viewpoint just after the order, where we can see that the order was completed. This sentence doesn't say ANYTHING WHATSOEVER about when the order takes place or whether it happens before or after now. There is no reference event. It is completely impossible to place this isolated sentence on a timeline. *jIghungpu'.* This describes my state of hunger. I am placing the listener at a viewpoint after my hunger is over, to look back in time to see my hunger come to an end. This sentence also says absolutely nothing about whether this hunger occurs before, simultaneously with, or after now, and there is no reference event. It is completely impossible to place this isolated sentence on a timeline. Now remember that old chestnut of TKD: "The absence of a Type 7 suffix usually means that the action is not completed and is not continuous (that is, it is not one of the things indicated by the Type 7 suffixes)." "Usually" in this context does not mean "you can ignore this rule whenever you want." It means there are times when your desire to use a type 7 suffix is blocked by some other rule, like how you can't use a type 7 suffix on the second verb of a sentence-as-object construction. Apply the rule to these sentences: *pItSa' chab vIvun.* An order of pizza takes place. The action described cannot be considered to be viewed from after its completion, and it cannot be considered to be viewed from deep inside without seeing the endpoints (the meaning of continuous, which I won't get into here). What kinds of actions might such a sentence describe? Well, the action could be happening simultaneously with the viewpoint. It hasn't finished yet. Or our viewpoint might be situated before the action even starts, placing the action in the future of the viewpoint. Or the action might be timeless, not occurring at any given time, but just being generally true. Or the action might be something I do over and over again, making it impossible to place a given viewpoint anywhere that would identify the action as completed. All of these are valid uses of this sentence, and given the right context, you should be able to figure out which one I mean. Now go back to English. How would you describe ordering a pizza earlier in the day, at 3:00? /At 3:00 this afternoon, I ordered pizza./ Here, we use the simple past tense to describe the action as BEFORE NOW. The reference time pegs when that was, but the tense just tells us it's before now. Now here's the good bit. THIS ACTION IS PERFECTIVE. English doesn't mark verbs for perfective and doesn't have a tense corresponding to it. But you can work out the details. This is a single instance of ordering a pizza, so it's not something habitual or repetitive or general. It happens exactly once: at 3:00 this afternoon. It's not happening simultaneously with or after the viewpoint of the listener — remember, the viewpoint is not the same as the reference event — because it's impossible to follow that sentence with anything except what happened AFTER the order (or to suddenly jump the viewpoint back in time). This is a perfective sentence, even though English does not mark its sentences for perfective. For us English speakers, it takes a lot of work to recognize perfective. It's not natural for us. Our tenses are complex and subtle and difficult for non-natives to learn, but they don't match the way Klingon works. Klingon tense is purely contextual. Klingon aspect doesn't line up with any English grammar. TKD claims it will TRANSLATE Klingon perfective with English present perfect tense, but it only does so about half the time. The other half it's simple past tense. But even future perfect tense is a possible translation for perfective: *DaHjaj ram pItSa' chab vIvunpu'*/Tonight I will have ordered pizza./ Viewpoint is looking back on the completed order; both the viewpoint and the order take place at the reference time, tonight. Now is before tonight. And I think you'll find that understanding perfective this way will match up perfectly with canon. So, any questions? Do you see that Klingon perfective does not mean "prior to the time context"? It is not equal to English perfect tenses? -- SuStel http://trimboli.name
qatlho’neS. The following paragraph was exactly what I needed to read. The rest was helpful, and likely the thought process of the rest of it helped you arrive at this crystalline nugget that is at the core of aspect and somehow it’s slippery enough that from time to time, I drop it. Thanks for helping me pick it back up again. charghwI’ vaghnerya’ngan rInpa’ bomnIS be’’a’ pI’.
On Oct 6, 2020, at 11:20 AM, SuStel <sustel@trimboli.name> wrote:
Aspect, on the other hand, doesn't tell you in which direction of time an event occurs. Aspect tells you the shape of an event. It tells you how the event occurred and how you're looking at it. Aspect tells you things like whether an action is unchanging or continuous or instantaneous or having an abrupt start or having an abrupt ending or being repetitive or being habitual or being timeless. It doesn't tell you WHEN the action happened, just HOW it happened and how YOU are viewing it.
And of equal importance: ***************** For us English speakers, it takes a lot of work to recognize perfective. It's not natural for us. Our tenses are complex and subtle and difficult for non-natives to learn, but they don't match the way Klingon works. Klingon tense is purely contextual. Klingon aspect doesn't line up with any English grammar. TKD claims it will TRANSLATE Klingon perfective with English present perfect tense, but it only does so about half the time. The other half it's simple past tense. But even future perfect tense is a possible translation for perfective: DaHjaj ram pItSa' chab vIvunpu' Tonight I will have ordered pizza. Viewpoint is looking back on the completed order; both the viewpoint and the order take place at the reference time, tonight. Now is before tonight. ***************** Yes. It is challenging to wrap an English speaking brain around this grammatical point that English doesn’t map very well. For myself, I get it… and then later on, without sufficient practice, I forget it, and need to explore it again to remind myself of this grammatical difference as a thing independent of the English “perfect tenses”. The term “perfective” is too close to “perfect” to not encourage confusion, because it is harder to understand something one has misunderstood than it is to understand something that one has not understood.
charghwI':
I’d more simply say {jIghungpu’mo’ pItSa vIvun.}
QIn wa'DIch vIqontaHvIS, DuHvam vIqelpu'; 'a QIn tlheghvam meq 'oHbe'mo' {-mo'}'e', {-mo'} mu'tlhegh vIqonpu'be'. lieven:
(By the way, I very often use the phrase {ngoDvammo'} "Because of that fact", roughly meaning "that's why".)
Daj. QInlIj vIlaDpu'DI', {meqvammo'} quvyaHwIj vInuDpu'. chay' taghpu' ? jISIvpu'.. chaq pa'logh "because of this reason" jIjatlhpu' vIneH, 'ej vaj wa'logh {meqvammo'} vIlo'pu'DI', SIbI' jIHvaD quvyaH mojpu'.. jIH:
"I was hungry so I ordered a pizza". jIghungpu'; vaj pItSa' vIvunpu' jIghungpu'; meqvammo' pItSa' vIvunpu'. SuStel: your use of perfective here is incorrect. jIghungpu' describes the completed state of you being hungry. If your hunger were completed, you would not need to order pizza, because you would no longer be hungry.
jIQaghpu'. jatlh DIvI' mu'tlhegh: "I was hungry so I ordered a pizza", 'ach vay' pIm vIjatlhpu' vIneH. "I have been hungry, so I have ordered a pizza" jIjatlhpu' vIneH. 'ach bIlugh SuStel; DaH DIvI' Hol mu'tlhegh vIneHpu'bogh vIqelqa'taHvIS, taQ DIvI' Hol mu'tlheghvam 'e' vItlhoj. 'ej taQ je {jIghungpu'; vaj/meqvammo' pItSa' vIvunpu'}. taQ je 'elaDya' Hol mu'tlheghvam. ~ Qa'yIn
ST3:
Valkris: Qu'vaD lI' net tu'bej. "You will find it useful." Kruge: vaj Daleghpu'. "Then you have seen it?" ST5: tlhIngan ghaH wa' vub'e'. "One of the hostages is a Klingon." [...] vaj toDDujDaj ngeHbej DIvI'. "That means the Federation will be sending a rescue ship of its own." SuStel: Good examples. vaj can spring from a concept that isn't a reason for whatever follows the vaj.
De'vam vIyajlaHbe'. De'vam DaQIjqang'a' ? ~ Qa'yIn
On 10/9/2020 8:39 AM, mayqel qunen'oS wrote:
ST3:
Valkris: Qu'vaD lI' net tu'bej. "You will find it useful." Kruge: vaj Daleghpu'. "Then you have seen it?" SuStel: Good examples. vaj can spring from a concept that isn't a reason for whatever follows the vaj. De'vam vIyajlaHbe'. De'vam DaQIjqang'a' ?
When Kruge says *vaj Daleghpu',* he isn't saying /Because of this reason, you have seen it./ There is no "reason" acting on anything here. He is drawing a conclusion based on other information. -- SuStel http://trimboli.name
The stuff that precedes {vaj} provides context for what follows it. That context does not need to be a “reason”. Valkris says that Kruge will find the data useful. How does she know this? She must have seen the data. “Thus, you have seen it.” The data being useful is not the REASON she has seen it. She is merely providing unintentional evidence that she has seen it. The statement that she thinks it will be useful provides a context from which Kruge concludes that she has seen it. “One of the hostages is a Klingon” is not a reason the Federation will be sending a rescue ship of its own. The Klingon is probably an exception to the reason the Federation is sending the rescue ship. They probably wouldn’t specifically seek to rescue a Klingon, but they would send a rescue ship for the others. Still, given the context that there are federation people among the hostages, one can conclude that the Federation will be sending a rescue ship. In a conditional statement, you set up a condition that is context for what follows {vaj}. It might be a reason, or it might not be a reason. In logic, we learn that “if/then” statements are true regardless of the outcome if the condition is false, but only true if the “then” part is true if the “if” part is true. tlhoy bIjatlhchugh vaj qaqIp. If you talk too much, then I will hit you. I might hit you if you don’t talk too much, too, but there’s no way you are going to talk too much and not have me hit you. You talking too much may or may not be the reason that I hit you, since I might hit you, even if you don’t talk too much. I could hit you for some other reason. Your talking too much is merely a context that is strongly linked to me hitting you. Likely, I already have a reason to hit you, like maybe you broke up with my beloved sister and she is heartbroken, but I’m willing to put that aside if you don’t talk too much, since I could ignore you if you don’t talk too much, but if it becomes impossible to ignore you, I will punch you, for my other, unstated reason. {-mo’} is for reasons. {vaj} is for statements derived from preceding context. qaQaHta’’a’? bImIStaH’a’? charghwI’ vaghnerya’ngan rInpa’ bomnIS be’’a’ pI’.
On Oct 9, 2020, at 8:39 AM, mayqel qunen'oS <mihkoun@gmail.com> wrote:
ST3:
Valkris: Qu'vaD lI' net tu'bej. "You will find it useful." Kruge: vaj Daleghpu'. "Then you have seen it?" ST5: tlhIngan ghaH wa' vub'e'. "One of the hostages is a Klingon." [...] vaj toDDujDaj ngeHbej DIvI'. "That means the Federation will be sending a rescue ship of its own." SuStel: Good examples. vaj can spring from a concept that isn't a reason for whatever follows the vaj.
De'vam vIyajlaHbe'. De'vam DaQIjqang'a' ?
~ Qa'yIn _______________________________________________ tlhIngan-Hol mailing list tlhIngan-Hol@lists.kli.org http://lists.kli.org/listinfo.cgi/tlhingan-hol-kli.org
On 10/9/2020 9:42 AM, Will Martin wrote:
“One of the hostages is a Klingon” is not a reason the Federation will be sending a rescue ship of its own. The Klingon is probably an exception to the reason the Federation is sending the rescue ship. They probably wouldn’t specifically seek to rescue a Klingon, but they would send a rescue ship for the others. Still, given the context that there are federation people among the hostages, one can conclude that the Federation will be sending a rescue ship.
The full exchange was inappropriately clipped in that example, which is why I didn't reply to it here. Vixis: tlhIngan ghaH wa' vub'e'. Klaa: latlh? Vixis: wa' tera'ngan je wa' romuluSngan. Klaa: vaj toDDujDaj ngeHbej DIvI'. Klaa was replying to the news that one of the hostages was a Terran, not that one was a Klingon. In this case, /because of this reason/ could actually be used here if we didn't already have *vaj.* I still find the use of *meqvammo'* extremely clumsy, however. It often doesn't make sense until you squint at a sentence long enough to realize that something has been presented as a reason for something else. With *vaj,* on the other hand, you don't have to recognize something as a reason. You just have the cue that the sentence is a conclusion of some sort. ** -- SuStel http://trimboli.name
I completely agree with SuStel’s analysis but I do have a small quibble which I don’t think anyone has mentioned yet (I’ve carelessly deleted the thread). Okrand seems to have expanded the meaning of {meq} from a simple “reason, motive”: (TKW 143): Klingons may not care whether a falsehood is intentional, but only whether the information is reliable. As Ambassador Kell admonished Worf, "Motives? Who cares for motives? Humans, perhaps." (TNG "The Mind's Eye") This attitude is reflected in a proverb: {ram meqmey} "Motives are insignificant". DaH naDev jIHtaHbogh meq Saja' Now I will tell you why I am here. (PB) … to the more abstract “reasoning, logical thinking”: (KGT 154): This word [i.e. {mo’}] literally means “cage”, suggesting that one's reasons for accomplishing a particular act are somehow restrictive or confining, as if preventing escape into other forms of behavior. The slang meaning is no doubt also influenced by the noun suffix {-mo'} (due to, as in {HeSmo'}, “due to the crime”) and verb suffix {-mo'} (“because”, as in {HIvmo'} [“because he/she attacks”]). The slang term {mo'} is used in sentences such as {jaghpu' mo' wIyajnIS} (“We must understand the enemies' motive”; literally, “We must understand the enemies' cage”). A close standard equivalent is {meq} (“reason”) -- that is, logical thinking. Note Vulcan philosopher’s T’Plana-Hath’s famous quote “Logic is the cement of our civilization, with which we ascend from chaos using reason as our guide." (ST4 & ENT “The Forge”) {meq} also appears in {meqba'} *mek'ba*, a type of Klingon legal proceeding: that portion of a Klingon trial or appeal in which evidence is heard during which all evidence must be heard in open council (cf. TNG "Sins of the Father"). See too the homophonous verb {meq} “reason (TKD)”, i.e. think logically: (qepHom 2017 p.13): For logic, use the verb {meq}. It's a verb that means, among other things, think logically. I think Klingons would use a verb when talking about types of thinking rather than a noun. For emotions, you can use the verb {tIw}. This means “react emotionally, behave emotionally." The progression seems to go from a (minor) reason/motive to (the more abstract) reason/reasoning. Similar abstract nouns include {ghanroq} "basis, foundation (underlying support for an idea, argument, or process, depending on context, could also be {meq} or {qolqoS})" (qep'a' 2018), {potlh} “consequential thing, something important" and {qangtlhIn} "ideology, beliefs, principles, standards, ethics". All that being said… though I concur that {meqvammo’} is a bit clumsy, I quite like the sound of the slangy {mo’mo’}. <g> -- Voragh Ca'Non Master of the Klingons ________________________________________________________________ From: tlhIngan-Hol <tlhingan-hol-bounces@lists.kli.org> On Behalf Of SuStel Sent: Friday, October 9, 2020 8:55 AM I still find the use of meqvammo' extremely clumsy, however. It often doesn't make sense until you squint at a sentence long enough to realize that something has been presented as a reason for something else. With vaj, on the other hand, you don't have to recognize something as a reason. You just have the cue that the sentence is a conclusion of some sort.
charghwI':
qaQaHta’’a’? bImIStaH’a’?
choQaHbejpu', 'ej qatlho'. jangpu'bogh Hoch, Satlho'. 'ach vabDot {vaj} vIyaj(law')taHvIS, jIHvaD qay'taH vay'.. DIvI' Hol mu'tlheghvam yIlaD: "because of these reasons we need to attack the romulans, said the general to the chancellor." chay' mu'tlheghvam vImughlaH jay' ? mItbe' {meqvammo'}, 'ej pagh latlh mu'/mu'mey vIjallaH. ~ Qa'yIn
reH chovnatlh le’ chenmoHlaH vay’. rut <<vaj>> ‘oSmeH lughlaH <<meqmeyvammo’>>. “Because of these reasons, we need to attack the Romulans,” said the general to the chancellor,” vImughmeH, jIjatlh: Qang ja’ Sa’. vaj romuluSngan DIHIvnIS. *Context*vo’ meqmeyvam DISov. ‘utbe’ mu’vam. raq. mujbe’ <<Qang ja’ Sa’. meqmeyvammo’ romuluSngan DIHIvnIS.>>. raq neH. charghwI’ vaghnerya’ngan rInpa’ bomnIS be’’a’ pI’.
On Oct 12, 2020, at 8:06 AM, mayqel qunen'oS <mihkoun@gmail.com> wrote:
charghwI':
qaQaHta’’a’? bImIStaH’a’?
choQaHbejpu', 'ej qatlho'. jangpu'bogh Hoch, Satlho'.
'ach vabDot {vaj} vIyaj(law')taHvIS, jIHvaD qay'taH vay'.. DIvI' Hol mu'tlheghvam yIlaD: "because of these reasons we need to attack the romulans, said the general to the chancellor."
chay' mu'tlheghvam vImughlaH jay' ? mItbe' {meqvammo'}, 'ej pagh latlh mu'/mu'mey vIjallaH.
~ Qa'yIn _______________________________________________ tlhIngan-Hol mailing list tlhIngan-Hol@lists.kli.org http://lists.kli.org/listinfo.cgi/tlhingan-hol-kli.org
On 10/6/2020 9:38 AM, mayqel qunen'oS wrote:
{vaj} {meqvammo'} bopbogh vay''e' vIyajbe'.
vaj = so, then, thus, in that case meqvammo' = because of this reason
jIjatlh vIneH: "I was hungry so I ordered a pizza".
jIghungpu'; vaj pItSa' vIvunpu' jIghungpu'; meqvammo' pItSa' vIvunpu'.
chay' pIm cha' mu'tlheghvam ?
Just a few thoughts, not an answer: When in doubt, always look at the very first usage of a word: ST3: Valkris: Qu'vaD lI' net tu'bej. "You will find it useful." Kruge: vaj Daleghpu'. "Then you have seen it?" ST5: tlhIngan ghaH wa' vub'e'. "One of the hostages is a Klingon." [...] vaj toDDujDaj ngeHbej DIvI'. "That means the Federation will be sending a rescue ship of its own." In both cases, {vaj} is a conclusion, it never means the same as {meqvammo'}, which focusses on a given reason to do something. (By the way, I very often use the phrase {ngoDvammo'} "Because of that fact", roughly meaning "that's why".) -- Lieven L. Litaer aka the "Klingon Teacher from Germany" http://www.tlhInganHol.com http://klingon.wiki/En/Hamletmachine
On 10/6/2020 11:13 AM, Lieven L. Litaer wrote:
ST3: Valkris: Qu'vaD lI' net tu'bej. "You will find it useful." Kruge: vaj Daleghpu'. "Then you have seen it?"
ST5: tlhIngan ghaH wa' vub'e'. "One of the hostages is a Klingon." [...] vaj toDDujDaj ngeHbej DIvI'. "That means the Federation will be sending a rescue ship of its own."
In both cases, {vaj} is a conclusion, it never means the same as {meqvammo'}, which focusses on a given reason to do something.
Good examples. *vaj* can spring from a concept that isn't a reason for whatever follows the *vaj.* -- SuStel http://trimboli.name
participants (5)
-
Lieven L. Litaer -
mayqel qunen'oS -
Steven Boozer -
SuStel -
Will Martin