tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Tue Sep 16 20:15:08 1997

Back to archive top level

To this year's listing



[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]

Re: mung tlhIngan-Hol



Mark E. Shoulson wrote:
> >Date: Sun, 14 Sep 1997 14:46:48 -0700 (PDT)
> >From: da Hiasl <[email protected]>
> 
> >I'm no linguist but I think tlhIngan-Hol must
> >be of
> >    incorporating , aggluinative kind .
> >
> >Or do you know any tlhIngan inflections ?
> 
> Yes, it's mostly an agglutinating language.  Not much in the way of
> inflections.
> 
I know of only one spot in Klingon grammar where one could say that
there are inflection.
In type 4 nouns suffixes, non-3rd person possesive pronouns
{-'} refers to beings capable of language
{-j} refers to everything else

> >TlhIngan-Hol lacks big irregulations , which is more a feature of invented
> >languages .
> 
> Yes, it is noticeably constructed in its regularity.  Though I for one
> found it a little refreshing, after having read dozens of constructed
> languages each harping on how regular they were to find one that had even a
> few irregularities and wasn't ashamed of it.  (of course, now I've met with
> a lot more irregular conlangs).
There are a few natural languages that lack big regularities.
For instance: Turkish.
There are only two regular verbs (but these are regular in their own
way), and one irregular noun.
But for what is irregular in most languages there is usually a reason
for it. All one has to do is find a pattern that matches it.

mi'e xe fanva tadni toi noi tcidu co se bangu fole bangrturko 
({T�rk�e} Hol vISovbogh) mughtej jIH

pItlh
fa'o



Back to archive top level