Re: KLBC: {-be'}

["Sean Healy" <sangqar@hotmail.com>]

jatlh ro'Han:
> > His
> > head doesn't contain the entire Klingon language; perhaps this rule
> > resembles the English sentence "He saw John and I in the park". If we 
>want
> > to be strictly accurate on the general rule, English grammar says 
>"Objects
> > go in the accusative case". But we say "He saw John and I in the park"
> > anyway, because when we say this sentence, that rule doesn't work. We 
>need
> > to use a different one.

jatlh SuStel:
>Erm . . . no, "He saw John and I in the park" is just wrong, not a 
>different
>rule.  I'm a native English speaker!  Those Klingon linguists can come and
>ask me as they study the language!  *We* do not say this; maybe you do, but
>I certainly don't!  :)

But he has a good point - many things are perfectly acceptable (to most 
people) in colloquial speech where they wouldn't be in monitored speech.  So 
maybe a lot of things Maltz has told MO are examples of this (it gives MO an 
out for some of those things he wishes hadn't happened anyway).  In fact the 
prefix trick seems like an example of this.  And we know from canon that 
some ungrammatical constructions are acceptable in some circumstances.  
(TKD, p. 168)

And if you're a descriptivist rather than a proscriptivist, this usage of 
'I' is widespread enough that it has to be considered an acceptable 
alternative (and I have definite descriptivist leanings).  I've gotten to 
the point where the only example of this that still grates on my nerves is 
'between you and I'.  For some reason, that one still bugs me.

_________________________________________________________________
Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com/intl.asp.