tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Mon Nov 15 06:34:00 1999
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
Re: KLBC Intro: Part two
On Sat, 13 Nov 1999 11:34:42 -0500 David Trimboli
<[email protected]> wrote:
> > Meanwhile, look in TKD on
> > page 66 in the last sentence of the second paragraph: "In
> > complex sentences of this type, the second verb never takes an
> > aspect suffix (section 4.2.7)." We don't like this rule, and
> > Okrand has broken it in some of his own examples, but we do
> > follow it whenever we think of it, and specifically in your
> > example as in most examples, it is not necessary.
As a point of clarification, I wasn not saying "the rule is not
necessary". I was saying "the Type 7 suffix is not necessary." I
was saying that in most cases when you think you need the Type 7
suffix on the second verb, you really don't. If you read the
rest of my message, you'd likely realize this, since I went on
to describe how the Type 7 suffix was unnecessary in that
example. Meanwhile, taken this extract out of context, one might
think, as SuStel apparently thought, that I think the rule is
optional. Just because Okrand has broken it doesn't mean that I
will, whenever I can remember, which is most of the time.
charghwI'
> Fellow Klingonists! Join me in establishing the "I LIKE the 'No Type 7 on
> the Second Verb'" Institute! Save this unhappy and oft-beleaguered
> grammatical rule from unnatural extinction! Preserve with me the integrity
> of wondrous grammatical arbitrariness!
>
> In other words, stop knocking this rule, Grammarians! It IS necessary, it
> ISN'T horrible, and you'll make the beginners ignore it because they'll
> think it's optional.
>
> Besides, I happen to like it.
>
>
> SuStel
> Stardate 99867.7