tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Wed Jan 21 17:15:30 1998
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
Re: KLBC: taghqa' DuSaQ
- From: Qov <[email protected]>
- Subject: Re: KLBC: taghqa' DuSaQ
- Date: Wed, 21 Jan 1998 17:14:41 -0800
At 16:15 98-01-18 -0800, HovqIj wrote:
}Qov wrote:
}
}> Or perhaps {lutu'lu'}, just because I'm pedantic. We've never actually seen
}> {lutu'lu'} used here, where the rules say it should be.
}
}I thought of {lutu'lu'} here, but in TKD there's that {naDev puqpu' tu'lu'}
}sentence (p.43), so I thought it's maybe an exception (kind of commonly used
}expression that has developed into a shorter form). It seems to be just a
clipped
}(or wrong?) form, however.
All the examples we have use {tu'lu'} so I can't very well mark it wrong.
It seems that {lutu'lu'} is a lot like the English word "whom": required at
times for strict correctness, but the error is noticed by so few people that
someone once considered me caring about it a unique identifer. (I was
trying to persuade him online that I was who I am, and despite all the
intimate details of previous conversations that I was able to reveal, he
remained unconvinced until he asked "who was I mad at last time you were
here?" and I answered "Whom." Then he said "It IS you!!!!") Your use of
{tu'lu'} is correct according to all the examples, but I had to point out
that it may me technically wrong.
Qov [email protected]
Beginners' Grammarian