tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Tue Jun 25 13:17:35 2002
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
Re: Headers. Yet again.
From: "Sangqar (Sean Healy)" <[email protected]>
> My first instinct as far as using nouns with a Type 5 suffix as a subject
or
> object is to say no (with the already abundantly mentioned exceptions of
> {'e'} and verbs of motion).
Right. You say "no" to using them that way unless so indicated by Okrand.
So do I.
But there's a difference between "should not be done" and "cannot be done."
The verbs of motion show that it CAN be done, but it's clear that it SHOULD
be done only when Okrand says it's okay to do it.
And that's my point. I'm not trying to talk about how the language is
supposed to be used; I'm talking about its theoretical limits, and what's an
exception to what. I'm not trying to present a descriptive ruling of the
language, nor am I saying there's something wrong with descriptive rules.
I'm saying that when you say you CAN'T do those things, what's really going
on is that you USUALLY SHOULDN'T do those things, the times that you should
being defined by Okrand.
SuStel
Stardate 2482.6