tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Sat Jul 13 12:13:55 2002
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
Re: 'e' Xlu' vs net X, was Re: grammar questions
- From: "David Trimboli" <[email protected]>
- Subject: Re: 'e' Xlu' vs net X, was Re: grammar questions
- Date: Sat, 13 Jul 2002 13:11:38 -0400
- References: <[email protected]>
From: "Andrew Strader" <[email protected]>
> Is there any reason that "'e' Xlu'" has to have a different meaning from
"net
> X" in order for it to be allowed? By analogy, just because we have "wen",
> that doesn't mean that "jar ret" is invalid. Certain things can have more
> than one way of being said.
So is it your opinion that /net/ is never required? That it is totally
optional? If /'e' X-lu'/ is allowed at all times, what is the point of
/net/?
I can certainly agree that there are times when a language will have more
than one tool to do something, but in this case declaring /'e' X-lu'/ to be
identical to /net X/ would seem to make the whole word /net/ absolutely
pointless. I can also agree that languages can have tools whose functions
have been taken over by other tools. Do you believe that is what has
happened with /net/?
I might be able to buy Tad's theory, but given that TKD tells us when /net/
is SUPPOSED to be used, I'll have a little more trouble with this one. :)
SuStel
Stardate 2531.7