tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Wed Mar 26 17:07:08 1997
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
RE: KLBC: "tu'lu'" with plurals
- From: "David Trimboli" <[email protected]>
- Subject: RE: KLBC: "tu'lu'" with plurals
- Date: Wed, 26 Mar 97 23:06:46 UT
On Wednesday, March 26, 1997 11:00 AM, [email protected] on behalf of Mark
E. Shoulson wrote:
> >> 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.
I can certainly accept {lutu'lu'} being a more pedantic way of saying the same
thing, but I don't see that dropping {lu-} is clipping. The very first
example, used after defining {tu'lu'} as "there is," is {neDev puqpu' tu'lu'}.
I find it hard to believe that a grammatical example would use clipping.
--
SuStel
Beginners' Grammarian
Stardate 97234.7