tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Fri Nov 19 04:28:09 1999
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
Re: Klingon WOTD: baj (v)
- From: [email protected]
- Subject: Re: Klingon WOTD: baj (v)
- Date: Fri, 19 Nov 1999 07:27:41 EST
jatlh Voragh:
>this is not a mistake or a case of Okrand simply
>"forgetting exactly how {net} works" as he's done with, for example, {lu-}
and
>{-lu'} on occasion. He's never used the word once in the 14 years since TKD
>was first published in 1985. This is rather a case of Okrand forgetting or
>ignoring the fact that {net} exists at all. Either of which leads me to
>suspect that {net} was never intended to be a part of Klingon grammar, but
>simply a one-off backfit for yet another Valkris-ism. This no doubt explains
>his comment in TKD (p. 65f.):
>
> {net} is used only under special circumstances, but {'e'} is common...
But regardless on what your opinion is on the use of {net}, {net} is used
differently from {'e'}, and can only be used in certain circumstances;
namely, those circumstances where the subject of the second sentence in a
sentence-as-object construction is indefinite.
That said, I've never really liked {net}. It seems rather pointless when
{-lu'} works equally well.
jatlh SuStel:
>Remember, Okrand is no expert Klingon speaker!
jang Voragh:
>net Sov. 'a po' ghaH matlh'e'!
Holtej ghaH'a' *matlh'e'? Sung ghaH, 'ach chaq tlhIngan Hol jatlhHa'.
tera'ngan Hol lujatlhHa' Humanpu' law'; lujatlhchu'be'.
pagh Qo'noS Sep pImvo' chaq 'oH *matlh, 'ej ta' Hol jatlhchu'be'.
- DujHoD