tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Mon Mar 11 15:32:41 1996
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
Re: Time (Out)
- From: [email protected]
- Subject: Re: Time (Out)
- Date: Mon, 11 Mar 1996 18:33:40 -0500
In a message dated 96-03-11 00:22:26 EST, you write:
>There must inevitably
>come a time when we stop accepting every example from Marc Okrand
>as canon. We already do that to some extent when we discount the
>obvious mistakes like {cha'maH wa' rep} for noon, or a blatantly
>mispronounced syllable. But the repeated oddities, like "wrong"
>placement of the subject in a ritual toast,
On this one, you should be careful. I don't know whether this was just done
to cover a mistake or two, but in the CK tape (not PK, right?) Okrand
specifically states that toasts "follow special grammatical rules." I would
suggest that the toasts on the tapes should be accepted as completely
correct, but not necessarily grammatical examples.
> or showing indirect
>objects with verb prefixes, still carry the force of grammatical
>law.
Ugh. As you know, I hate those, too.
> Because of their strangeness and contradiction of the rules
>as originally presented, I prefer to use the older forms instead
>of the apparently equally valid "shorthand" constructions. But I
>will not, and can not, ignore the {SoH 'Iv} and {Dochvam nuq}
>examples from Conversational Klingon.
I always saw {Dochvam nuq} as "Wazzat?", which is an oddity, not a rule!
About {SoH 'Iv} . . . isn't there a funny problem with subject and object
sometimes switching places when using the English verb "to be" in a statement
of equivalancy? I don't know much about it, but if I'm right, then perhaps
this either (1) confused Okrand, or (2) made him decide that something
similar happens in Klingon.
SuStel
Hovjaj 96194.2