tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Sun Apr 14 00:07:25 2002

Back to archive top level

To this year's listing

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]

Re: "be'be'" - double negation

At 11:26 2002-04-13 -0400, David Trimboli wrote:
>Nowhere does Klingon have any sort of required agreements in the language.
>There's no gender, for instance.

But person- and number-agreement is obligatory between verbs and their 
overt subject NPs and object NPs.  {jIyIt jiH}, never *{bIyIt jIH} nor 
*{mayIt jIH}, right?
The only complication is that nouns don't have to obligatorily /mark/ 
plurality -- or I guess you could say that every noun that can take a 
plural ending {mey}/{pu'}/{Du'} can also take a plural ending {0} instead.

>But it DOES prove that negation-agreement is NOT required.
Yes, that was my point in that section, that negative concord is at least 
nonobligatory, if it exists at all in Klingon.

Sean M. Burke

Back to archive top level