tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Sat May 30 02:07:30 2009

Back to archive top level

To this year's listing



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

Re: -vaD

Fiat Knox (fiat_knox@yahoo.co.uk)



> As I said, I don't follow my own interpretation of the
> meanings of {-vaD} 
> and {-Daq}; I try to conform to mainstream usage.  I
> just happen to think 
> that usage is wrong.  
> Perhaps I'm just wishing that Klingon grammar were more cut
> and dried, 
> simpler by my own standards.  Oh well.

Which is why we need TKD and KGT to hand, not just electronic or printed lists of Klingon words. More than just the word lists; it's the grammar and syntax those books contain that are important to learn.

Well, at least so I've imagined things to be.

--- On Sat, 30/5/09, MorphemeAddict@wmconnect.com <MorphemeAddict@wmconnect.com> wrote:

> From: MorphemeAddict@wmconnect.com <MorphemeAddict@wmconnect.com>
> Subject: Re: -vaD
> To: tlhingan-hol@kli.org
> Date: Saturday, 30 May, 2009, 9:57 AM
> In a message dated 5/29/2009 21:38:26
> Eastern Daylight Time, 
> doq@embarqmail.com
> writes:
> 
> > I don't recommend that you continue to hold the
> minority opinion that  
> > {-vaD} means "to". It won't give you many Klingon
> speakers to talk to  
> > if you use it that way.
> > 
> > It's really easy to mistakenly decide that you have a
> unique  
> > understanding of some granular element of the Klingon
> language that  
> > differs from everybody else and you are the one who is
> right. I've  
> > done this too many times and it has not served me
> well. I regret every  
> > instance of this error.




      






Back to archive top level