tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Fri Aug 22 06:49:13 1997
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
RE: wI'oj?
- From: [email protected] (Alan Anderson)
- Subject: RE: wI'oj?
- Date: Fri, 22 Aug 97 08:34:08 EST
charghwI' writes:
>I think I found a boo boo in KGT. Page 102. One yells at the
>waiter, <<jabwI'! wI'oj!>>..I think I would have expected {ma'oj}
I noticed that too, but I ignored it. After all, the context here
involves the person already having had several rounds of presumably
intoxicating drink. :-)
Kenneth Traft replies:
>It could mean that we don't have to worry about the differences in prefixes.
No, it doesn't mean we shouldn't worry. It means people *do* make
mistakes and we probably shouldn't jump down their throat for doing it
in casual conversation. However, I still reserve the right to jump
down the throat of anyone who tries to *teach* people to use the wrong
words, suffixes, and/or prefixes.
>The use of mamevQo' in the anthem!
What about the use of {mamevQo'} in the anthem? It means "We won't stop."
There's no object; {ma-} is correct here.
>Maybe the POOR grammarians will be out of a job if Okrand publishes MORE!!!!
HHHHHHHHHHHHardly. Look at how much confusion this book has caused.
If anything, the grammarians' role is *more* important because of the
newly revealed and implied usages. Somebody has to act as a brake on
all the misunderstandings and unwarranted speculation! :-P
>I be very bad! <*vI*qabqu'>
nuqjatlh? toH. bItlhaQ 'e' DanID qar'a'? *sigh*
-- ghunchu'wI'