tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Thu Feb 07 16:28:34 2002
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
Re: omitting {lu-}
- From: [email protected]
- Subject: Re: omitting {lu-}
- Date: Thu, 7 Feb 2002 16:27:52 EST
jatlh Voragh:
>[lu-] is often omitted with {tu'lu'} as a common, but very
>widespread, colloquial mistake - analogous to the disappearance of "whom"
>or the use of double negatives in contemporary English. ghunchu'wI'
>reported that at qep'a' loSDIch "Robyn Stewart's idea of {lutu'lu'} as the
>Klingon version of 'whom' got a nod and an explicit lack of contradiction
>[from Okrand].
In addition to these examples, there is an even more direct parallel in
English. In my dialect, "there is" and "there are" are used interchangeably
before "a lot": "There's a lot of things you don't know." "There are a lot
of cat owners on this block." I believe "there are" is technically right,
but maybe that's hypercorrection.
(I say "in my dialect" because I've never really noticed if it's done
elsewhere.)
How does this sort of change/confusion occur? My guess would be that things
like {tu'lu'} and "there is" gradually become fixed expressions from being
said so many times.
-Sengval