tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Sat Sep 10 11:01:49 1994
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
Re: tu'lu' vs. lutu'lu'
- From: "William H. Martin" <[email protected]>
- Subject: Re: tu'lu' vs. lutu'lu'
- Date: Sat, 10 Sep 94 22:57:31 EDT
- In-Reply-To: <[email protected]>; from "Mark E. Shoulson" at Sep 9, 94 4:00 pm
According to Mark E. Shoulson:
>
> We use "tu'lu'" pretty often, at least I do. And I rarely think about it.
> It occurred to me that "-lu'" requires a "lu-" prefix for plural objects,
> according to 4.2.5, and the PK phrase "to'baj 'uS lughoDlu'bogh" for "stuff
> toebadge legs." This would imply that I have to re-read all my text
> carefully and watch for things like "tlhInganpu' tu'lu'" and change them to
> "lutu'lu'".
>
> Then I remembered a canon phrase from the phrasebook: naDev tlhInganpu'
> tu'lu'. Oh my. Is this a typo in the phrasebook? A thinko on Okrand's
> part? Grammaticalization of "tu'lu'"? Help.
>
> ~mark, confused Grammarian.
I tend to see the phrase book as one of the earliest (and least
practiced) writings Okrand has ever made, and so it has some
mistakes in it. I would tend to think of this as such a
mistake. I would tend to think of {to'baj 'uS lughoDlu'bogh} as
newer canon that supercedes the elder work.
Meanwhile, I suspect that {tu'lu'} with a plural object is a
forgivable (and probably common) grammatical error. Meanwhile,
it IS an error. Maybe if you considered it to be clipped...
charghwI'