tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Thu Jun 13 23:04:20 2002

Back to archive top level

To this year's listing

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]

Re: Headers. Yet again.

>> bIQtIqDaq vIjaH.

Will writes:
>This is a special exception, it is noted as one and you know it...
>It does nothing to reinforce your point that in theory, you can use Type 5
>suffixes on nouns while they are the subject or object of a main verb...

Hold on a bit.  Whether you're right on this or he is, *you* are addressing
exactly the wrong point here.  The central issue that I think SuStel tried
to bring up when he made his first comment in this tread is the difference
between two statements:

1) A noun acting as other than subject or object comes before the object.

2) A noun with a Type 5 suffix (with exceptions) comes before the object.

TKD gives us Statement #1 and notes that such nouns usually have a Type 5
suffix.  Most people seem to internalize that in the form of Statement #2,
and then repeat Statement #2 as if it were the real rule, without even
realizing that they're not the same thing.

>When you teach newcomers, you teach them the most dependable generalities
>the language and as they learn more, you introduce the common exceptions to
>those "rules". As they learn more, you introduce them to the more rare
>exceptions. If they get that far, you can then start theorizing about how
>exceptions might exist, even though there's no evidence for it. You don't
>confuse newcomers by immediately insisting that they consider the theoretical
>possibility that a particular rule might have exceptions to it that no one has
>ever seen in canon.

The most dependable generality here *is* Statement #1, as presented in TKD.
The "exceptions" about {-'e'} and verbs of motion are only exceptions if
your model of Klingon grammar includes Statement #2.

-- ghunchu'wI'

Back to archive top level