tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Mon Feb 22 10:50:32 1999
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
Re: qama'
- From: "William H. Martin" <[email protected]>
- Subject: Re: qama'
- Date: Mon, 22 Feb 1999 13:50:28 -0500 (Eastern Standard Time)
- In-Reply-To: <[email protected]>
- Priority: NORMAL
On Sun, 21 Feb 1999 23:15:40 -0800 (PST) [email protected]
wrote:
> In a message dated 2/19/1999 1:43:28 PM US Mountain Standard Time,
> [email protected] writes:
>
> << Speaking for myself, I am unsure what the correct
> useage is. If you ask me {nuqDaq DaDab?} I am quite uncertain
> which of the following answers is more correct:
>
> *Shannon*Daq vIDab.
> *Shannon* vIDab.
> *Shannon*Daq jIDab.
>
> Almost certainly one or more of these is correct, but I can't
> tell you without great doubt which is most correct. I'm quite
> mystified as to how you feel so much more confident that you
> know the right way. >>
>
> I know the right way to answer {nuqDaq DaDab} and the right way is {Shannon
> vIDab}. I have no doubt about this at all.
>
> How do I KNOW? KGT clearly states that {Dab} means "live at." From related
> discussion regarding the necessity of the locative, we can conclude that
> locative is not required for such a gloss of a Klingon verb.
>
> peHruS
But that same "clear" statement would likely lead me to ask the
question as {nuq DaDab} and not {nuqDaq DaDab}. It is not really
all that clear. I'm okay with it being a little vague. If Okrand
cares to clear this up more, I'll be delighted. Meanwhile, I
don't have the ego to take this on as a personal mission to set
Okrand straight on how his language is supposed to work.
charghwI' 'utlh