tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Thu Jun 09 18:27:28 2005
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
Re: Rovers
- From: bob mcfaddin <[email protected]>
- Subject: Re: Rovers
- Date: Thu, 9 Jun 2005 18:27:16 -0700 (PDT)
- Domainkey-signature: a=rsa-sha1; q=dns; c=nofws; s=s1024; d=yahoo.com; h=Message-ID:Received:Date:From:Subject:To:In-Reply-To:MIME-Version:Content-Type:Content-Transfer-Encoding; b=kOmE+ixbq1YM5t+ZTTmUu9CZXSrZz8qDbJ2A2U7KmJwXP27LQIk+ebooqExyUjvTlnDLBFa9pzHZxoi+spHwyK4ghKm7OLQ9i93J0AJkbD3pmRHJQjJ7uFf31a+Z/v1ls3eaYrRYnhx1VV6wQEtO/BbVs2Z+IDxSqF+5qFJUIVI= ;
- In-reply-to: <[email protected]>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
[email protected] wrote:Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
In a message dated 6/9/2005 4:53:28 PM Eastern Standard Time,
[email protected] writes:
> The subject of rovers came up recently, noting that {-Ha'} was a special
> case. Actually, I don't think it is a special case. All rovers have one
> thing in common: They don't follow the normal rules of verb suffixes.
> Instead, each of them has its own rule:
>
> -Ha': always comes first after the verb
> -Qo': always comes last after all other suffixes
> -be': follows whatever it negates.
>
> In fact, the most controversial of the three is the most commonly used:
> {-be'}. The controversial aspect is that most people, including myself,
> think that it negates the syllable it follows (be that a suffix or a verb
> root). This makes for a nice, clear grammar without stupidly unnecessary
> ambiguity.
>
'e' vIparHa'qu'.
lay'tel SIvten
jIQochqangbe'.(whew, a Klingon double negative..I am unwilling to disagree.) Cite canon all they desire, MO is quite clear that it is the notion being negated that -be' follows. Canon examples notwithstanding, the rule is explicitly stated. What may be implied from canon examples is easily trumped by an explicitly stated rule. If MO (mistakenly?) breaks his own rules on occasion, that does not render them any less legitimate as rules. It more likely represents an ungrammatical dialect...slang, if you will.
jajvam lururbogh jajmey'e' lutu'lu' muja'ta' SoSoywI'
juDmoS
---------------------------------
Yahoo! Mail
Stay connected, organized, and protected. Take the tour