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

[lojmIttI'wI'nuv]

You say that {vaj} is connecting “two statements”. Note that {bIjeghbe'chugh} is not a statement. It’s a dependent clause, just like {qaleghDI’} or {qavuvmo’}. You would not use a conjunction to join any of these to a statement. They are dependent clauses. Joining statements is just what they do.

The adverbial isn’t “joining” anything. It’s just adding meaning to the second statement. You can leave it out if you like, but it just seems incomplete. {bIjeghbe’chugh bIHegh} is a complete sentence. The {vaj} is not a conjunction.

DaH choyaj’a’?

pItlh
lojmIt tI'wI'nuv



> On Feb 25, 2016, at 3:26 PM, John R. Harness <cartweel at gmail.com> wrote:
> 
> Thanks for the insights, everyone! Once again proving that a simple question can provoke a lot.
> 
> Looking through the thread I see remarks about -'eghmoH for statives and also the appropriate uses of vaj, along with what Qov brought up earliest re: the phrase "Surrender or die." Awesome.
> 
> For my part I want simple clarification on adverbials and conjunctions. I see what lojmIt tI'wI'nuv is saying about vaj being an adverbial, not a conjunction.  But dang doesn't it act a lot like a conjunction -- I mean it is relating one statement to another: X, thus Y. Or rather: X. Thus, Y.
> 
> So what is it doing in {bIjeghbe'chugh vaj bIHegh}?
> 
> Maybe that question is really: What is bIjeghbe'chugh doing without a main verb?
> _______________________________________________
> 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/20160225/ae083065/attachment.html>