tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Fri Sep 09 22:40:42 1994
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
Re: tu'lu' vs. lutu'lu'
- From: [email protected] (Nick NICHOLAS)
- Subject: Re: tu'lu' vs. lutu'lu'
- Date: Sat, 10 Sep 1994 15:22:13 +1000 (EST)
- In-Reply-To: <[email protected]> from "Mark E. Shoulson" at Sep 9, 94 04:00:18 pm
Hu'tegh! nuq ja' Mark E. Shoulson jay'?
I'll sound like I'm making this up, but I had actually observed both that
we would theoretically need lutu'lu', and that canon uses just tu'lu' (not
in the phrasebook example; it might have been on the tapes). It is canon,
and it may have been a thinko of Okrand's, but I'll call it a
grammaticalisation, sure: verb -> particle. These thinkos aren't random,
after all.
--
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>.<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<
Nick Nicholas. Linguistics, University of Melbourne. [email protected]
[email protected] [email protected]
AND MOVING REAL SOON NOW TO: [email protected]