Skip to content

Email Discussion Group

Re: "be'be'" - double negation

tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Sun Apr 14 00:07:25 2002

Back to archive top level

To this year's listing

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]

Re: "be'be'" - double negation

At 11:26 2002-04-13 -0400, David Trimboli wrote:
>Nowhere does Klingon have any sort of required agreements in the language.
>There's no gender, for instance.

But person- and number-agreement is obligatory between verbs and their 
overt subject NPs and object NPs.  {jIyIt jiH}, never *{bIyIt jIH} nor 
*{mayIt jIH}, right?
The only complication is that nouns don't have to obligatorily /mark/ 
plurality -- or I guess you could say that every noun that can take a 
plural ending {mey}/{pu'}/{Du'} can also take a plural ending {0} instead.

>But it DOES prove that negation-agreement is NOT required.
Yes, that was my point in that section, that negative concord is at least 
nonobligatory, if it exists at all in Klingon.

Sean M. Burke

Back to archive top level

This page was last modified on February 13, 2015 and is managed by:

The Klingon Language Institute is a nonprofit corporation and exists to facilitate the scholarly exploration of the Klingon language and culture. Klingon, Star Trek, and all related marks are Copyrights and Trademarks of Paramount Pictures. All Rights Reserved. Klingon Language Institute Authorized User.