tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Fri Jun 14 08:44:09 2002

Back to archive top level

To this year's listing

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

Re: Headers. Yet again.

From: "Alan Anderson" <>

> >> 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
> >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
> 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
> >about
> >the language and as they learn more, you introduce the common exceptions
> >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
> >other
> >exceptions might exist, even though there's no evidence for it. You don't
> >confuse newcomers by immediately insisting that they consider the
> >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
> The "exceptions" about {-'e'} and verbs of motion are only exceptions if
> your model of Klingon grammar includes Statement #2.
> -- ghunchu'wI'

Yes!  You've got it exactly.  Thanks for rephrasing this very nicely!

Stardate 2451.9

Back to archive top level