tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Thu Sep 08 23:40:02 1994

Back to archive top level

To this year's listing



[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]

Re: X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.4 PL21]



According to Mark E. Shoulson:
> 
> [charghwI' writes:]
> 
> >>jIH lugh law' SoH lugh puS qar'a'?
> 
> Except that I, at least, have my doubts about how to construct law'/puS
> sentences with pronouns as subjects.  Somehow "jIH lugh" just looks wrong.
> Granted, absent any evidence, it's the closest thing we have to conforming
> to TKD, but I don't think it's all that close.  I wonder about things like
> "?jIlugh law' bIlugh puS" or even "?lughwIj law' lughlIj puS."  No, I'm not
> recommending these, but the ideas were kicked around.  I think this was on
> the list of Okrand questions ages back.
> 
> >  >charghwI'
> 
> ~mark

While I agree that it isn't pretty, I don't think anything
about law'/puS is pretty, and as you admit, this really is the
closest thing to following TKD on how to do this. In other
words, I think this one IS the conservative construction. I
think this one is the only of these three variations that fits
TKD enough to be considered proper Klingon, until Okrand
clarifies things further. Meanwhile, I think it is clear enough
with the current language in TKD that this really is the way
this should be said and I don't think we need to avoid saying
this kind of thing until Okrand declares what is right.

I'll go with consensus, but I suggest that if people really
think about this, they will agree that this is proper Klingon.
TKD does not say that in A Q law' B Q puS that Q is a fully
formed verb. He merely says that Q is a verb stating the quality
being measured. A and B are the things being compared. He did
not say they would not necessarily be pronouns.

If I'm wrong on this, I think the argument against my
interpretation needs to be a little stronger and more clearly
stated.

charghwI'



Back to archive top level