tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Wed Mar 26 07:42:47 1997
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
Re: KLBC: "tu'lu'" with plurals
>Date: Tue, 25 Mar 1997 21:45:46 -0800 (PST)
>From: "David Trimboli" <[email protected]>
>
>jatlh qoror:
>
>> I have a question. When "tu'lu'" is used with plurals, shouldn't it be
>> "lutu'lu'?" Or has it evolved into a relatively independent term?
>
>Oh, this wasn't every instance of {tu'} or {tu'lu'}. There are some others
>which are similar to the ones I've quoted here. However, I don't believe Mark
>Okrand has ever used {lutu'lu'}. I cannot find any such reference. If you
>use it, it will be logically correct, but since we don't see it, I suspect it
>may not be used.
Hmm. I tend to like to be able to use it, and actually I often use it
myself. It sounds nice and pedantic to me, like what might be used if
someone wanted to be especially persnickety about his diction. I mean,
according to the explanation of the language, it's right, isn't it? It's
just that in all our examples it doesn't seem to show up, but that can be
explained as an extremely pervasive instance of clipping.
~mark