Re: omitting {lu-}

[SoberAlien@aol.com]

jatlh Voragh:
>[lu-] is often omitted with {tu'lu'} as a common, but very 
>widespread, colloquial mistake - analogous to the disappearance of "whom" 
>or the use of double negatives in contemporary English.  ghunchu'wI' 
>reported that at qep'a' loSDIch "Robyn Stewart's idea of {lutu'lu'} as the 
>Klingon version of 'whom' got a nod and an explicit lack of contradiction 
>[from Okrand].

In addition to these examples, there is an even more direct parallel in 
English.  In my dialect, "there is" and "there are" are used interchangeably 
before "a lot":  "There's a lot of things you don't know."  "There are a lot 
of cat owners on this block."  I believe "there are" is technically right, 
but maybe that's hypercorrection.

(I say "in my dialect" because I've never really noticed if it's done 
elsewhere.)

How does this sort of change/confusion occur?  My guess would be that things 
like {tu'lu'} and "there is" gradually become fixed expressions from being 
said so many times.

-Sengval