tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Mon Feb 02 19:33:16 1998
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
Re: Locatives and {-bogh} (was Re: KLBC Poetry)
- From: "David Trimboli" <[email protected]>
- Subject: Re: Locatives and {-bogh} (was Re: KLBC Poetry)
- Date: Sun, 2 Feb 2098 17:26:41 -0500
-----Original Message-----
From: William H. Martin <[email protected]>
To: Multiple recipients of list <[email protected]>
Date: Monday, February 02, 1998 2:07 PM
Subject: Re: Locatives and {-bogh} (was Re: KLBC Poetry)
>> I think it is truly nasty, and hope it is not the case!
>
>You might have said the same thing about {qach tInDaq SoplI'
>HoD} before Okrand decided to do it that way. Your reasoning
>would likely be similar to that you voice here.
Yes, had the construction not been incorporated into the language in its
first incarnation, I probably would have. But trying to guess my response
to something which we already know the answer to is hardly an argument, and
certainly not very fair.
Besides, {qachDaq tIn} ISN'T hard to understand by any means. It just
happens to be wrong, but not because it MUST be. Okrand decreed that {-Daq}
migrates, and so it does. He might even have been thinking in terms of
postpositions, but there is a good deal of difference between adjectivally
acting verbs and relative clauses.
Until Okrand makes a new decree one way or the other, I see no reason to
alter known rules and examples in favor of HUMAN language patterns.
SuStel
Stardate 98091.5