tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Mon Sep 28 18:22:18 1998

Back to archive top level

To this year's listing

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

RE: Ke'Plak

lab Qermaq:

> I am surprised, charghwI'. You must know that one cannot 
> prove non-existence through logic. Since we agree that 
> TKD is not a complete description of every point of 
> Klingon, we also must agree that lack of mention is no 
> proof of lack of existence. We simply do not know whether 
> there is a relative pronoun or not. I, and you, believe 
> it is highly unlikely, but I do not know. Unless you have 
> kidnapped Maltz, neither do you.

vay' tu'be'lu' not net toblaH 'e' Damaq'a', Qermaq?  bImujbej.
vIQIjmeH, Doch nger je DIqel.  Doch tu'lu'chugh, teHchu' nger net
tobchugh, 'ej mujchu' nger net tobchugh, vaj Doch tu'be'lu'chu' net tob.

One certainly CAN prove non-existence through logic.

In any case, charghwI' did not follow any logical line of reasoning when
he stated that Klingon doesn't have relative pronouns; he just stated
it, and he is correct. We have no evidence at all in the language as it
has been described to us that relative pronouns exist. This is not like
vocabulary, where we could easily bug Maltz for a word for "pipe" or
some such thing; this is a basic feature of the grammar. It is always
possible Maltz could tell us that there is some construction which had
not been previously documented where <insert wild speculation here>, but
that is unlikely enough that most of us ignore this possibility until it
happens.

pagh

Back to archive top level