tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Mon Apr 22 08:22:01 2002

Back to archive top level

To this year's listing

[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.

Stardate 2306.7

Back to archive top level