tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Mon Apr 22 08:22:01 2002
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
Re: John and I go...
From: "Andrew Strader" <[email protected]>
> SuStel wrote:
>> There is no evidence that you can say */majaH torgh/ (let's use a Klingon
>> name). The correct way of saying it is /majaH jIH torgh je/. I believe
>> we've had an example (I can't cite it) with "pronoun noun je" as subject.
> Can't cite it? Tsk tsk.
Not when I'm answer the e-mail at work, no.
> Nonetheless I think it is premature to say that
> ??majaH torgh?? is out-and-out wrong.
I didn't say it was wrong, I said there was no evidence for it.
> >wouldn't be opposed to /majaH Hoch maH/, because /Hoch maH/ is
> >a plural 1st person phrase.
> Really?!! I would really like to know if THIS is canonical.
No, it isn't. That's why I added the "apparently."
I say that it seems to work to me because /Hoch <something>/ means "each
<something>." If "something" has to be a noun and not a pronoun, I don't
think we have that information. Now, I can certainly see a problem with the
idea of "each us" (how many "us"'s are there?); maybe /maH Hoch/ "all of us,
the entirety of us" would make more sense.
> I could
> not accept "Hoch maH" without canonical support; it just seems too
> and too probably an Anglicism.
I don't really approve of /Hoch maH/ either, however I find it odd that
you're willing to accept /majaH torgh/ over it. Just because something may
be less similar to English does not give it credence.