[85707] in tlhIngan-Hol
RE: chay' "Get out of the way!" ra'lu'?
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Steven Boozer)
Thu Jun 4 10:20:15 2009
From: Steven Boozer <sboozer@uchicago.edu>
To: "'tlhingan-hol@kli.org'" <tlhingan-hol@kli.org>
Date: Thu, 4 Jun 2009 09:17:09 -0500
In-Reply-To: <3D5CE5E94085449FB7E9F68A9EDCECF5@juH.Seruqtuq.net>
Errors-to: tlhingan-hol-bounce@kli.org
Reply-to: tlhingan-hol@kli.org
Voragh:
>>> Actually my objection wasn't to the placement of conjunctions in
>>> general, but the placement/use of {pagh} "or else, either/or"
>>> specifically, which (to me) implies a choice between only two
>>> options: either/or. Using it with three options seemed odd...
>>> rather like speakers who misuse "on the other hand".
SuStel:
>> I see. We shouldn't look at it as a logic problem though. In English we
>> can say, "I could be right, you could be right, or he could be right."
>> That's an exclusive or, but one with three possibilities.
>>
>> I do not believe that /pagh/ or /ghap/ are allowed only two arguments.
DloraH:
>I look at "either" as differentiating it from "and/or", not as a two-
>option limitation.
I now agree with you both. {pagh} is an exclusive contrast (only one option [of several] is right) while {qoj} is inclusive (one or more of several options may be right).
I found this three clause example with {qoj} "and/or":
Qu' buSHa'chugh SuvwI', batlhHa' vangchugh, qoj matlhHa'chugh,
pagh ghaH SuvwI''e'
If a warrior ignores duty, acts dishonorably, or is disloyal,
he is nothing. TKW
I also looked again at the parallel noun conjunctions {ghap} and {joq} and found this comment by Okrand stressing the mutually exclusivity of the options:
pung ghap HoS
Mercy or power TKW [sic!]
TKW 119: It is noteworthy that the conjunction in the Klingon phrase is {ghap} (either/or), not {joq} (and/or). This implies that one must choose between mercy and power; they are incompatible.
--
Voragh
Canon Master of the Klingons
