tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Wed Nov 19 01:04:03 1997
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
Re: maHagh tlhInganpu' (was:Klingon words for "subject"...)
- From: "Anthony.Appleyard" <[email protected]>
- Subject: Re: maHagh tlhInganpu' (was:Klingon words for "subject"...)
- Date: Wed, 19 Nov 1997 09:03:38 GMT
- Organization: Materials Science Centre
- Priority: normal
Terrence Donnelly <[email protected]> wrote:-
> Just to pick a nit: How do we know [that {maHagh tlhInganpu'} for "We
> Klingons laugh"] doesn't work that way? Is it explicitly forbidden by canon?
SuStel wrote:
> We don't know (i.e. it is not printed in Okrandian script)
We best just agree that "lex silet" / {jatlhbe' chut} here, and if possible
add it to the list of queries for Okrand, else decide policy by ourselves.
SuStel wrote:
> ... Arguments of the type "it just doesn't feel right" or ... are
> non-arguments: totally subjective, unanswerable. ...
When you are learning a new language, often a valid construction may "feel
wrong" because you didn't know before that it was valid. E.g. a Latin `cum' =
"when" clause with the subjunctive looks wrong to learners if the event that
it describes is totally factual; but it is the rule.