tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Sat Aug 30 20:05:33 1997
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
Re: 2 more Okrandian backfits
- From: "Mark E. Shoulson" <[email protected]>
- Subject: Re: 2 more Okrandian backfits
- Date: Sat, 30 Aug 1997 23:05:23 -0400 (EDT)
- In-reply-to: <[email protected]> (message fromMarian Schwartz on Sat, 30 Aug 1997 13:35:15 -0700 (PDT))
>Date: Sat, 30 Aug 1997 13:35:15 -0700 (PDT)
>From: Marian Schwartz <[email protected]>
>
> Here are two KGT disprovations of some subjects we were pretty sure of.
>At least, the first one is. Maybe not the second one.
>
> We always figured, I think, that "above me" or some such thing to be
>"DungwIjDaq." It was common sense: with a noun, you use the possessive
>construction, so with a pronoun, given TKD page 52:
>
> I think we assumed that, because I saw the construction in Hamlet.
Ayup, *I* always assumed it. It just made sense. To think otherwise would
be to contradict TKD which says that pronouns aren't used for possessives,
and that "nagh DungDaq" is a possessive construct
>Ah-ah-ah! KGT page 24:
>
> "A pronoun may be used instead of a noun: jIH 'em ("behind me" --
>literally, "I area behind"), chaH bIng ("below them"-- literally, "them area
>below."
And indeed the only one who could tell us that the above line of reasoning
is wrong has done so.
> It goes on to say that it is indeed done the way we do sometimes, but
>that's by the Sakrejians and we don't want to sound like them, do we?
Yep. I was really surprised by this, and basically figured, "well! I've
been speaking Sakrejian all this time and didn't know it!" Neat.
~mark