[Tlhingan-hol] KLBC: "shut up or I'll hit you"

[John R. Harness]

"I see that the phrase I’m pretty sure that {bIjeghbe’chugh vaj bIHegh} is
in TKD, while {bIje’be’chugh vaj bIHegh} is in Conversational Klingon (an
audio tape and CD)."

I see that the phrase {bIjeghbe'chugh vaj bIHegh} is in TKD, but I don't
see anywhere that suggests that this is an example of some sort of formula
that must be followed in order to say "If X, then Y."


--

Socialist Alternative <http://www.socialistalternative.org/>
Klingon Language Institute <http://www.kli.org/>

On Wed, Feb 24, 2016 at 4:36 PM, lojmIttI'wI'nuv <lojmitti7wi7nuv at gmail.com>
wrote:

> I’m pretty sure that {bIjeghbe’chugh vaj bIHegh} is in TKD, while
> {bIje’be’chugh vaj bIHegh} is in Conversational Klingon (an audio tape and
> CD).
>
> Again, you do have the option of using {pagh}. There’s nothing wrong with
> {bIjegh pagh bIHegh} (so long as you are willing to make sure that the
> person you are talking to doesn’t die even after surrendering), but you
> can’t link an imperative with a statement and get the meaning that you are
> intending.
>
> If you want to make an imperative statement just do it. {yItam!}. Maybe
> make two statements {yItam! qaqIp ‘e’ vIqellI’.} Literally, “Be quiet! I’m
> considering hitting you.” Or be clever, like {yItam! tlhoS qaqIpchoH.} “Be
> quiet! I’ve almost begun to hit you."
>
> Here’s the problem:
>
> If I say, “You are quiet”, that is either true, or it is false. If I say,
> “I hit you”, then that is true or false. So {pagh} says A is true or B is
> true, where “You are quiet” is A and “I hit you” is B.
>
> So, looking at it this way, is “BE QUIET!” true or false?
>
> See what I mean? Imperatives are not true or false. They are imperatives.
> {pagh} only works between things that are true or false.
>
> pItlh
> lojmIt tI'wI'nuv
>
>
>
> On Feb 24, 2016, at 4:53 PM, John R. Harness <cartweel at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> Ah, now I see where this is being discussed in the one-sentence game
> thread.
>
> qunnoq said:
>
> "Recently, Qov had pointed out to me (thank you Qov !) that the klingon
> word {pagh} (conj) <or, either/or>, cannot be used in klingon, in the
> same way that we would say in english <surrender or die>.
>
> The formula in klingon is {...-chugh vaj ...} <if you do/don't
> (whatever) then (consequences)>. So, in your example the correct way
> to put it would be..."
>
> Qov, or anyone else, where is this formula established in the canon? (I'm
> not arguing against it, I'm just looking for a citation. A quick glance
> through the dictionary didn't turn anything up for me.)
>
> So then, QISta', if it is the case that there is simply a formula for this
> sort of statement, then that formula must be used.
>
> ***{bItamchoHbe'chugh vaj qaqIp.} it is, then.***
>
> Thanks for bringing up this question!!
>
>
> --
>
> Socialist Alternative <http://www.socialistalternative.org/>
> Klingon Language Institute <http://www.kli.org/>
>
> On Wed, Feb 24, 2016 at 3:45 PM, John R. Harness <cartweel at gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
>> QISta': I don't think what you've written breaks any rules, but it seems
>> to me that Qov is suggesting a more stylistic way of doing it...
>>
>> Qov: Thanks for the advice, but that raises more questions than it
>> provides answers for me.
>>
>> bIjeghbe'chugh vaj bIHegh. -> Surrender or die.
>>
>> Actually it says: "If you do not surrender, then you die."
>>
>> I suppose you are suggesting: {bItamchoHbe'chugh vaj qaqIp.} "If you
>> don't become quiet, then I hit you."
>>
>> For what is meant to be such an imperative sentiment, why is the
>> imperative avoided here? Why not {yIjegh vaj yIHegh}? Why not {yItamchoH
>> pagh qaqIp}?
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> --
>>
>> Socialist Alternative <http://www.socialistalternative.org/>
>> Klingon Language Institute <http://www.kli.org/>
>>
>> On Wed, Feb 24, 2016 at 12:33 PM, Robyn Stewart <robyn at flyingstart.ca>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> Look up how to say “surrender or die” in Klingon, and then answer the
>>> question yourself.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> *From:* chransberry at gmail.com [mailto:chransberry at gmail.com]
>>> *Sent:* February 24, 2016 10:02
>>> *To:* tlhingan-hol at kli.org
>>> *Subject:* [Tlhingan-hol] KLBC: "shut up or I'll hit you"
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> So, I'm wondering about this construction, {yItamchoH pagh qaqIp}. That
>>> is, an imperative connected to a declarative, as a threat - does that work?
>>>
>>> -QISta'
>>> Pardon my woeful ignorance
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> Tlhingan-hol mailing list
>>> Tlhingan-hol at kli.org
>>> http://mail.kli.org/mailman/listinfo/tlhingan-hol
>>>
>>>
>>
> _______________________________________________
> Tlhingan-hol mailing list
> Tlhingan-hol at kli.org
> http://mail.kli.org/mailman/listinfo/tlhingan-hol
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Tlhingan-hol mailing list
> Tlhingan-hol at kli.org
> http://mail.kli.org/mailman/listinfo/tlhingan-hol
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mail.kli.org/pipermail/tlhingan-hol/attachments/20160224/5384f687/attachment.html>