tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Sat Aug 30 20:05:33 1997

Back to archive top level

To this year's listing



[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]

Re: 2 more Okrandian backfits



>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


Back to archive top level