tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Thu Jul 09 20:29:36 2009

Back to archive top level

To this year's listing



[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]

Re: Questions with law'/puS

Doq (doq@embarqmail.com)



I agree with SuStel on this one and add that I doubt you would find a  
lot of people who would agree on how to interpret an interrogative  
version of the {law'/puS} construction. Comparison grammar in Klingon  
is unrelated to any other Klingon grammar and is remarkably limited in  
its functionality. Trying to make it versatile will likely just make  
it confusing. Any time you are tempted to use it in some novel way,  
you are pretty much guaranteed to be better served by seeking some  
other grammatical construction not involving {law'/puS}.

Doq

On Jul 9, 2009, at 7:49 PM, David Trimboli wrote:

> Terrence Donnelly wrote:
>> --- On Thu, 7/9/09, David Trimboli <david@trimboli.name> wrote:
>>
>>
>>>>> It's special. It can't be interpolated or
>>> expanded. It must remain
>>>>> fixed. Period. Done. Game, set, and match.
>>> rIntaH.
>>>> Absence of evidence /= evidence of absence.
>>> I didn't claim there was any evidence.
>>
>> You're claiming that since we've never seen the suffix {-'a'} (for
>> example) used with {law'/puS}, its use is absolutely impossible,
>> whereas all that proves is that we've never seen it.  Unless or until
>> MO rules definitively "No", it remains a possibility.
>
> Take away the "since we've never seen" part. I am making a statement
> unfounded by any evidence. It has only the force of opinion and
> conservatism. I speak prescriptively, as a style guide, not
> descriptively. It is not a claim, it is a directive.
>
> I did NOT say it can't be done because we haven't seen it.
>
> -- 
> SuStel
> tlhIngan Hol MUSH
> http://trimboli.name/mush
>
>
>







Back to archive top level