tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Mon Nov 30 15:04:31 2009

Back to archive top level

To this year's listing



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

RE: Double negatives

blake.turner (blake.turner@yotes.collegeofidaho.edu)



Thanks everyone! I really appreciate the diversity of response and opinion marshaled on this question, and am now even further excited by the prospect of participating with the group. 

not QuchDu'raj tunmoHjaj!

~toQ



> Date: Mon, 30 Nov 2009 17:38:39 -0500
> Subject: Re: Double negatives
> From: qunchuy@alcaco.net
> To: tlhingan-hol@kli.org
> 
> On Mon, Nov 30, 2009 at 4:52 PM, Christopher Doty <suomichris@gmail.com> wrote:
> > Negative evidence isn't evidence.  If a Klingon speaker did say this,
> > that doesn't mean (based on what we know) that they are wrong; it only
> > means they've said something that isn't shown to occur in the
> > materials we have, but which isn't forbidden.
> 
> qIt Hoch wIleghbe'bogh 'e' wIwuqqangchugh, chenbej chatlh taQ. That
> way lies chaos. Since one of the tenets of this group is that we don't
> invent Klingon grammar, I object to proposals for which there is an
> abundant lack :) of evidence.
> 
> My answer to Blake should be uncontroversial: Klingon as we see it
> used does not "do" double negatives. Whether or not it might be able
> to in some hypothetical dialect is unimportant to the fact that it
> *doesn't* in the dialect we study.
> 
> -- ghunchu'wI'
> 
> 
> 
 		 	   		  




Back to archive top level