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    http://www.spinn.net/~sburke/



Back to archive top level


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