charghwI':

First, I’d recommend {vIHbe’meH qa’vIn} over {qa’vIn vIHMoHbe’lu’meH}

Yes, this is a good suggestion too. I didn't give much thought to whether I should use {vIHbe'meH} or {vIHmoHbe'lu'meH}. I just wrote the first thing which came to mind. SuStel:

I think this comes from your liberal splicing of parenthetical phrases in the middle of sentences

Indeed! In fact, what I was actually intending to write was: {HIvje' vIHmoHbe'lu'meH -vaj qa'vIn Qoy'moHbe'lu'meH- ngaDmoHwI' le' lo'lu'} But I must have gotten distracted by something and forgot the dashes.. Yes, I admit it.. Parenthetical phrases are to me the same thing, as a fish is to a cat. I just can't resist them. On a totally unrelated subject, do you get delivery reports for the messages you send to the list? I'm missing the delivery reports from yesterday, and today. -- Dana'an https://sacredtextsinklingon.wordpress.com/ Ζεὺς ἦν, Ζεὺς ἐστίν, Ζεὺς ἔσσεται· ὦ μεγάλε Ζεῦ

When I wrote “The Guitar Owner’s Manual — How to Buy, Maintain, and Repair an Acoustic Guitar” (available in iBooks), I was very much in the habit of writing run-on sentences, rife with parenthetical comments, as was my habit in speech as well as writing, with total disregard to the advice in Strunk and White, recommending concise and focused speech, using shorter, simpler sentences to express ideas rather than burdening each sentence with too much content for readers to maintain sufficient patience to slog their way through it all. But my editor just put periods between clauses, even if some of them were dependent. mu'tlhegh ngaD maS tlhInganpu’. qech Qatlh chIwlu'meH mu’tlheghmey law’ poQlu’chugh, qay’be’. Dayajlu’ghach potlh law’ Qatlh pab Dalo’laHghach potlh puS. pItlh charghwI’ ‘utlh (ghaH, ghaH, -Daj)

On Oct 27, 2021, at 9:41 AM, mayqel qunen'oS <mihkoun@gmail.com> wrote:

charghwI':

...

First, I’d recommend {vIHbe’meH qa’vIn} over {qa’vIn vIHMoHbe’lu’meH}

Yes, this is a good suggestion too. I didn't give much thought to whether I should use {vIHbe'meH} or {vIHmoHbe'lu'meH}. I just wrote the first thing which came to mind.

SuStel:

...

I think this comes from your liberal splicing of parenthetical phrases in the middle of sentences

Indeed! In fact, what I was actually intending to write was:

{HIvje' vIHmoHbe'lu'meH -vaj qa'vIn Qoy'moHbe'lu'meH- ngaDmoHwI' le' lo'lu'}

But I must have gotten distracted by something and forgot the dashes..

Yes, I admit it.. Parenthetical phrases are to me the same thing, as a fish is to a cat. I just can't resist them.

On a totally unrelated subject, do you get delivery reports for the messages you send to the list? I'm missing the delivery reports from yesterday, and today.

-- Dana'an https://sacredtextsinklingon.wordpress.com/ <https://sacredtextsinklingon.wordpress.com/> Ζεὺς ἦν, Ζεὺς ἐστίν, Ζεὺς ἔσσεται· ὦ μεγάλε Ζεῦ _______________________________________________ tlhIngan-Hol mailing list tlhIngan-Hol@lists.kli.org http://lists.kli.org/listinfo.cgi/tlhingan-hol-kli.org

On 10/27/2021 1:30 PM, mayqel qunen'oS wrote:

SuStel:

...

 The second phrase you wrote isn't so that the coffee doesn't spill; it's so that in order that the coffee doesn't spill.

I've been trying to resist the urge to ask this, but I can't. At least I resisted for three whole hours..

Suppose I write:

{HIvje' vIHmoHbe'lu'meH, vaj Qoy'be' qa'vIn, ngaDmoHwI' le' lo'lu'}

"In order that something doesn't move the glass, so the coffee won't spill, a special base can be used"

Aside the fact that there's a parenthetical phrase, is there something wrong? Does this sentence make sense?

Yes, there's something wrong. *vaj Qoy'be' qa'vIn* is an independent clause, not part of the purpose clause *HIvje' vIHmoHbe'lu'meH.* In English, /so the coffee won't spill/ can be interpreted as an independent clause sometimes, but here it means /so THAT the coffee won't spill,/ which is a dependent clause. It's like how you can't say this in Klingon: *qaSamchugh 'ej bIqetbe', qajon.*/If I find you and you don't run, I will catch you. /(This is ungrammatical.) // /You don't run/ can be interpreted as an independent clause in other contexts, but here it's just one component of the conjoined conditions: IF (I find you + you don't run). It's not (if I find you) + (you don't run). -- SuStel http://trimboli.name

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. 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. 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. -- Dana'an https://sacredtextsinklingon.wordpress.com/ Ζεὺς ἦν, Ζεὺς ἐστίν, Ζεὺς ἔσσεται· ὦ μεγάλε Ζεῦ

SuStel:

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.

I didn't know any of that! In fact, sometime in the past I came across a passage where the author was constantly using "wyrm", and I thought that it was a typo! -- Dana'an https://sacredtextsinklingon.wordpress.com/ Ζεὺς ἦν, Ζεὺς ἐστίν, Ζεὺς ἔσσεται· ὦ μεγάλε Ζεῦ

Well said. I wholeheartedly agree, speaking up for the semicolon, which deserves better understanding by the huddling masses. pItlh charghwI’ ‘utlh (ghaH, ghaH, -Daj)

On Oct 27, 2021, at 9:03 AM, SuStel <sustel@trimboli.name> wrote:

On 10/27/2021 8:55 AM, Will Martin wrote:

...

Secondly, you should note that {vaj} is not a conjunction. It’s an adverbial. It’s often used on the main clause after a conditional (dependent) clause. It’s not really intended to connect independent clauses like a conjunction does, though it can introduce a second sentence that results from the first. “I speak Klingon. Therefore, I am a nerd.” {tlhIngan Hol vIjatlhlaH. vaj jIven.} In translation, you can replace the period with a comma, but in Klingon, it’s actually two sentences.

Strictly speaking, punctuating like this: I speak Klingon, therefore, I am a nerd, is a run-on sentence. These remain independent clauses, so they must be connected with a semicolon: I speak Klingon; therefore, I am a nerd.

-- 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