tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Sun Apr 14 00:07:25 2002
[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/