tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Thu Nov 09 17:11:48 2000
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
Re: Grammar Highlight Each Day
- From: Alan Anderson <[email protected]>
- Subject: Re: Grammar Highlight Each Day
- Date: Thu, 9 Nov 2000 20:18:24 -0500
ja' Qov:
> lab peHruS:
> >To make a noun which refers to a being not capable of language plural, add
> >the suffix -mey.
>
> Hey there. So far I've read two postings this month, and they've both been
> attacks on this perfectly true statement.
>
> lab ghunchu'wI':
> > There is no category defined in Klingon grammar as "a being not capable of
> > language"...
>
> What you quoted doesn't imply that peHruS had defined a new category.
You are correct. He merely *used* the category, and didn't necessarily
define it himself. But perhaps he *should* have defined it, because
what he apparently means by "being" is certainly not what I think of
when I consider the word.
jatlhHa' peHruS:
> 'uSDu' ghaj raS = the table has legs ('uS = leg; raS = table) Notice that
> even beings not capable of language may have body parts.
Tables are not "beings" in my dictionary. Any dictionary which states
that they are is a dictionary I do not want anywhere near people who are
using the term "being" while discussing Klingon grammar.
It could be that peHruS is merely subdividing categories where most of
the rest of do not. I would like to give him the benefit of the doubt,
but his recent commentary regarding table legs leads me to suspect that
he has a wholly different idea of the categories than does TKD.
ja' Qov:
> peHruS paQDI'norgh naQ vIlaDbe'taHmo' vIpojlaHchu'be'. As I understand it.
> it's meant to be a "tip of the day" sort of thing.
It would be nice if that were the case. But it's obviously being
presented "progressively", with later posts referring back to earlier
ones.
-- ghunchu'wI' 'utlh