tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Sun Apr 14 05:43:52 2002

Back to archive top level

To this year's listing

• Index by Date
• Index by Thread
• Index by Author

Re: "be'be'" - double negation

• From: [email protected]
• Subject: Re: "be'be'" - double negation
• Date: Sun, 14 Apr 2002 05:43:37 EDT

Sean M. Burke wrote:
>His assuming the reader reads English is one thing; his assuming that his 
>reader will look at the words, note that they're in English and thus 
>suppose "He means me to assume Klingon is like English in all points not 
>demonstrated otherwise" is another.
>In my experience, linguists just don't do that.

Your experience tells you what it tells you, but we're still only guessing at 
the thoughts of someone that I don't believe either one of us has ever met.  
I'll stop speculating; I just wanted to contribute that one point to the 
discussion, and I've done that.

-Sengval

• Follow-Ups:
  • Re: "be'be'" - double negation
    • From: Alan Anderson <[email protected]>

• Prev by Date: RE: po'
• Next by Date: Klingon WOTD: jonpIn (n)
• Prev by thread: Re: "be'be'" - double negation
• Next by thread: Re: "be'be'" - double negation
• Index(es):
  • Date
  • Thread
  • Author

Back to archive top level