tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Thu Jun 13 20:56:50 2002
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
Re: Headers. Yet again.
From: <[email protected]>
> > bIQtIqDaq vIjaH.
>
> This is a special exception, it is noted as one and you know it.
Yes, I know it! It's one of those verbs which is specifically designated as
permitting a noun with a Type 5 suffix (in this case, /-Daq/ or /-vo'/) as
its object. I'm not saying it's not an exception. I'm saying it's one of
those rare cases when a non-'e', Type 5'd noun can be something other a
header. Are there others that we're aware of? Not at this time. Before
Okrand told us about the "verbs of motion," you'd have rejected any
suggestion that those verbs could take a Type 5'd noun as object. Now we
know better.
I'm saying that we discovered, much to our surprise, that there are several
verbs which break what we thought of as a rule. There is no way whatsoever
that you can declare there to be no other as-yet-undiscovered verbs which do
something similar. MAYBE OUR UNDERSTANDING OF THAT "RULE" WAS IN ERROR.
Maybe, GRAMATICALLY, there's no reason why Type 5'd nouns can't be subject
or object, but SEMANTICALLY there are very few verbs which allow it.
I'm not going to bother reading the rest of your latest novel; as you're in
full lecture mode . . .
> But hey, it's a free country. Believe what you like. It would be really
nice if
> you didn't confuse others in the process, but you do have the right to do
that,
> too, I suppose.
. . . except I caught this bit as I highlighted the quoted text to delete
it. "You have the right to be totally wrong, I suppose." Jeez. Guess
what? This list isn't a domain for YOUR interpretation of Klingon. Stop
being a language Nazi.