tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Tue Dec 11 22:05:38 2007

Back to archive top level

To this year's listing

• Index by Date
• Index by Thread
• Index by Author

Re: Prefix and noun agreement (was: usage of type-7 aspect suffix {-pu})

MorphemeAddict ([email protected])

• From: [email protected]
• Subject: Re: Prefix and noun agreement (was: usage of type-7 aspect suffix {-pu})
• Date: Wed, 12 Dec 2007 01:03:14 EST

In a message dated 12/10/2007 12:52:55 PM Central Standard Time, 
[email protected] writes:

> I know it's explicitly stated. That's how I can use it as a 
> demonstration of why proper Klingon (or even colloqial Klingon!) isn't 
> always that which makes the most sense. The point is that if "making 
> sense" were the only criteria for acceptable Klingon, you'd have to 
> throw out a lot of perfectly good, nonsensical rules.
> 


You're calling these rules nonsensical, but they aren't.
That's what threw me off, I think.

lay'tel SIvten   </HTML>

• Prev by Date: 'ISqu' <<Dao>>
• Next by Date: Re: Basic grammar question
• Previous by thread: Re: usage of type-7 aspect suffix {-pu}
• Next by thread: person of nouns in TKD
• Index(es):
  • Date
  • Thread
  • Author

Back to archive top level