Re: KLBC: {-be'}

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

> > 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)
>
>Ummm, page 168 is the list of verb suffixes and special number suffixes. I
>don't see that as in any way relating to your argument. If I'm wrong about
>this, it would be helpful if you'd point out the specific thing you are
>referring to.

Sorry, KGT, not TKD.

>Bad grammar is bad grammar. Deal with it. yIvingQo'.

nuqjatlh? jIvingtaHbe'. (Unless {ving} has some other connotation in Klingon 
besides the gloss 'whine'.)

Much of what you call 'bad grammar' is actually the process of a living 
language changing over time (there go my descriptivist tendencies again).  
But then again, Klingon is a tightly controlled artificial language, so it 
probably does have a relatively fixed grammar (as opposed to living 
languages).  The changes MO comes out with are additions, not alterations.  
On the other hand, it was designed to look and feel like a natural, living 
language, which is part of the reason MO came up with some examples of the 
'bad grammar' we so often see in such languages.  In fact, what is 
acceptable in terms of Klingon grammar varies according to social position 
and age - exactly the kind of thing we see in English with 'you and I'/'you 
and me'.

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