tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Mon Dec 15 13:58:26 1997

Back to archive top level

To this year's listing

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

Re: KLBC: -chuq and Object?

According to Qov:
... 
> I personally have no problem with {lut wIja'}.  I am not, however, supposed
> to be teaching the beginners to write in the Qovian SuStelian OR
> charghwI'Ian dialects.  I'm supposed to be teaching them to write Klingon
> that is acceptable to all the grammarians.  SuStel is strongly opposed to
> {ja'} taking an object other than the person addressed.  I have no problem
> with subordinate clauses going anywhere Okrand says they may.  charghwI'
> won't accept them anywhere other than at the beginning. 

I did not intend to set off this kind of response, but accept
it all the same. Meanwhile, this is a misrepresentation of my
position. While I do think subordinate clauses parse a lot
easier at the beginning of a sentence, I too accept them any
place Okrand says they mey go.

Our disagreement is over subordinate clauses based upon the
verb suffix {-mo'}. Okrand never told us where they may go.
Perhaps they may go anywhere {-taHvIS} or the other listed Type
9 suffixes can go, though if I remember properly, all Type 9
suffixes can't follow the main clause. He lists the ones that
can. {-mo'} is a weird case because it was not invented until
the appendix. There, it is said to behave much like the noun
suffix {-mo'}.

Nouns with {-mo'} must preceed the main clause. That is the
basis of my strong preference for {-mo'} based subordinate
clauses preceeding the main clause.

I accept your wrath, but prefer to have my position accurately
represented.

> I work around both
> restrictions. If someone wants to write Klingon that is unacceptable to one
> or more of the grammarians, that's his choice.

And if the current BG cares to get in a snit over an attempt to
help by a former BG, that's her choice.

> Qov     [email protected]
> Beginners' Grammarian                 

charghwI'

Back to archive top level