tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Tue Jul 22 06:41:18 1997
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
Re: lutu'lu' = whom (was {vegh})
- From: Terrence Donnelly <[email protected]>
- Subject: Re: lutu'lu' = whom (was {vegh})
- Date: Tue, 22 Jul 1997 08:39:14 -0500
At 08:59 PM 7/21/97 -0700, SuStel wrote:
>[email protected] on behalf of Alan Anderson wrote:
>
>> Robyn Stewart's idea of {lutu'lu'} as the Klingon version of "whom" got a
>> nod and an explicit lack of contradiction. {naDev tlhInganpu' lutu'lu'}
>> *is* grammatical, but the {lu-} is more often left off.
>
>Grrr . . . Klingon is what taught me the difference between "who" and "whom,"
>and ever since I figured it out I've been careful to use "whom" where it
>belongs. But I don't *want* to say {lutu'lu'} . . .
>
Maybe I'm just being stupid, but how does {lutu'lu'} translate as "whom"? All
I can get out of it is "They are found/observed". {naDev tlhInganpu' lutu'lu'}
means "There are Klingons here", right? Could you use it in a sentence with
the "whom" meaning?
>SuStel
>Beginners' Grammarian
>Stardate 97555.5
>
>
-- ter'eS
http://www.geocities.com/Area51/Corridor/2711