Re: "be'be'" - double negation

["David Trimboli" <SuStel@hotmail.com>]

From: <willm@cstone.net>
> From: SuStel:
> > Nowhere does Klingon have any sort of required agreements in the
language.
>
> That is an overstatement that is nearly, but not entirely true. Compared
to
> most languages, Klingon has a remarkable lack of need for redundant
agreement
> within the language. Meanwhile, unless you use the prefix trick to
indicate
> indirect object, the verb prefix has to agree with the number and person
of the
> subject and object.
>
> > There's no gender, for instance.
>
> Well, technically, the difference between nouns made plural by {-mey},
{-Du'}
> and {-pu'} is that of gender. Gender is not, in all languages, sexual.
> Similarly, the difference between nouns modified by {-ma'} or {-maj} is
gender.
> Klingon simply determines gender in a more logical way than many languages
do.

I stand corrected on both counts.

I hadn't considered gender categories other than the most common masculine,
feminine, and neuter, but you are absolutely correct that these are not the
only ones.

> Klingon "gender" is very much not memorized with the vocabulary. Gender
for
> forming plurals is determined much more by a logical classification of
> nouns: "body part / being capable of language / everything else".

I think Klingons aren't quite sure whether these sorts of gender are
memorized with the vocabulary.  On the one hand, they aren't in total
agreement as to whether /qaryoq/ take /-mey/ or /-pu'/ as the appropriate
plural suffix.  On the other hand, words like /'uS/ and /DeS/ take the body
part suffix even when referring to handles on inanimate objects.

SuStel
Stardate 2288.2