tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Mon Feb 07 21:04:45 1994
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
Re: pronouns as verbs
- From: Will Martin <[email protected]>
- Subject: Re: pronouns as verbs
- Date: Tue, 8 Feb 94 10:03:15 EST
On Feb 7, 7:37pm, [email protected] wrote:
> Subject: Re: pronouns as verbs
>
> Considering the statement that pronouns can only have noun suffixes: I hate
> to say it but it's wrong. Section 6.3, page 68....
> While most persons on this list might not take advantage of this
> fact, it's still available. Thus I must ask again: is "jIghaH" permissable?
> I would say yes. But then again, it would make writing my translator
> easier, so I'm biased.
>
> joy'wI'
What kind of Klingon seeks to make things EASIER? {{:|>
Others have pointed out that TKD describes the usage of SOME verb
suffixes on pronouns. That does not make pronouns just like verbs. Most of
the verb suffixes would produce gibberish applied to pronouns, and so would
ALL of the prefixes. When a Klingon says, "tlhIngan jIH", think "Me Tarzan."
The feel of it is closer to "Me Klingon" than it is to "I am a Klingon", so
trying to extend it a lot in order to get all of the usage English gets out
of the many variations of "to be" is short sighted. It shows less evidence of
desire to learn how to speak Klingon than of wanting to discover the simple
algorithm that will convert any English phrase into a Klingon phrase.
I wanted to let the grammarians speak on this first. ~mark did, but the
message has apparently not gotten through. This is a bad idea. Nobody
supports it. It is time to move on to other issues. I normally enjoy debate
on grammatical issues, but this one doesn't deserve it. It should die with
merciful quickness rather than stand weakly and suffer a slow, pitiful public
death.
charghwI'