tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Wed Nov 19 15:01:51 1997
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
Re: maHagh tlhInganpu' (was:Klingon words for "subject"...)
- From: Terrence Donnelly <[email protected]>
- Subject: Re: maHagh tlhInganpu' (was:Klingon words for "subject"...)
- Date: Wed, 19 Nov 1997 16:56:14 -0600
At 01:02 PM 11/19/97 -0800, SuStel wrote:
>From: Terrence Donnelly <[email protected]>
>>All this means is that this construction wouldn't apply in the vast
>>majority of cases. I can still see times when it could be useful.
>>{rInpu'DI' may', raQ wIcheHmoH. maQong DoywI'pu'. maSop ghunghwI'pu'.}
>>Kind of poetic, maybe, and not often called for, but definitely useful
>>in certain situations.
>
>I presume you meant {cher}, and not {cheH}.
>
HIvqa' veqlargh.
[...]
>
>In any case, now that several people have expressed doubts about this
>construction, I'd say that at least qualifies it as "questionable." Why
>would you insist on using a questionable construction when an unquestioned
>valid one would work just as well? This is not an argument against the
>validity of the construction, it's an argument against its *use* until more
>information is found.
>
Well, for one, I don't insist on it. I've used the construction
once, in a joke, where its markedness is perhaps appropriate. I thought
the construction was valid, and was surprised to hear you say it
wasn't. I asked for clarification. At first, I didn't get it
(I _still_ think relying entirely on the "doesn't feel right" argument
is annoying), but now you have convinced me. I'll drop the subject.
-- ter'eS