tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Fri May 27 06:15:17 1994
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
Re: more on stylistics
According to [email protected]:
...
> If the hoper is the third or second person, then I would gladly accept and
> advocate the use of {...'e' tul}. But normally in the first person, {-jaj} is
> more economical. As far as saying that {-jaj} carries connotations of
> formality, I disagree strongly. The use of "May..." in English constructions
> as an optative is archaic sounding and used in formal or poetic language, but
> that is no reason for considering Klingon {-jaj} equally formal and archaic.
> The main reason you consider it as such is because Okrand said merely that
> English sentences beginning with "May..." are translatable by {-jaj}. Notice:
> he did not say that {-jaj} *means* the same as "May..."
>
> >~mark
>
>
> Guido#1, Leader of All Guidos
Yes, but it is also probably useful to note that the ONLY
useage in canon of {-jaj} is in these formal toasts, and there
are quite a few such examples. Add to that that the verb tul
does exist with no special restrictions placed on it in its
definition or in the grammatical description for {-jaj}. I am
certainly open to the use of {-jaj} in settings other than
curses and toasts, but I think it is a little strong to OBJECT
to the use of {'e' vItul}. I don't think we've got enough
evidence to reach that conclusion.
charghwI'