tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Sat Mar 27 12:22:34 1999
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
Re: Order of ordinals
- From: TPO <[email protected]>
- Subject: Re: Order of ordinals
- Date: Sat, 27 Mar 1999 15:22:58 -0500
>First of all, I think you are getting a bit wound up over rather
>unproven stuff.
I'm not getting wound up about anything here. Others were talking about
putting the -DIch at the beginning of the sentance. So I sent this as a
possible explaination.
>> >"First, live honorably. Second, die with honor."
>> >
>> >By adverbially, I mean that ordinals (-DIch} could function
>> >somewhat like {-logh}, which is adverbial.
>> >
>> >This is PURE speculation:
>>
>> Qu' wa'DIch, blah blah blah.
>> Qu' cha'DIch, blah blah blah.
>
>That's not what I said. Qu' wa'DIchvaD. mIw wa'DIchvaD. There's
>a difference. The {-vaD} is important.
I wasn't refering to the sentences with -vaD
>> or
>>
>> wanI' wa'DIch, blah blah blah.
>> wanI' cha'DIch, blah blah blah.
>>
>> why repeat [Qu'] or [wanI'] (or whatever noun the ordinals are attached to).
>> Clip them off.
>
>Clipping happens to prefixes. It doesn't tend to happen to whole
>words. The difference is that stating "For the first step..." or
>"For the first task..." follows current grammar and word usage
>as given. "Clipping" changes the way we use the ordinals such
>that it becomes adverbial.
I wasn't talking about the offical "Clipped Klingon".
I was simply saying "why say the same word over again in every sentence.?"
Many times people leave repeated words out of sentences. context makes it
clear.
DloraH