tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Sat Mar 27 14:59:08 1999
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
Re: choH
- From: "David Trimboli" <[email protected]>
- Subject: Re: choH
- Date: Sat, 27 Mar 1999 17:58:53 -0500
Wouldn't it be interesting if a common Klingon error is putting {-moH} after
either {choH} (or maybe {-choH})? Let us suppose for a moment that Klingons
commonly put {-moH} after the suffix {-choH}. Then in Star Trek V, one
might conclude that Captain Klaa made that very error, except that he even
forgot that it wasn't a suffix!
This fits all the facts in a way that makes zero Okrand errors, but I'm not
advocating its truthfulness.
SuStel
Stardate 99236.0
jatlh ghunchu'wI':
I'll note that there's another example of a course change which also has
a {-moH}. TKD page 45: {maghoSchoHmoHneS'a'} "may we execute a course?"
But I don't see any pattern here.
>An analogous example might be the use of double negatives in English.
That's a reasonable thought. Almost everyone understands them, even while
recognizing that they are substandard grammar and not good examples for a
student of English to emulate. Putting a superfluous {-moH} on an already
transitive verb could be one of the "common errors" like leaving off {lu-}
(or it could be something else entirely).