tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Fri Nov 15 05:38:28 2013
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
Re: [Tlhingan-hol] Greetings from Maltz
<div dir="ltr"><br><div class="gmail_extra"><br><br><div class="gmail_quote">On Wed, Nov 13, 2013 at 9:37 AM, Steven Boozer <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:[email protected]"; target="_blank">[email protected]</a>></span> wrote:<br>
<div> </div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">At {qep'a' loSDIch} "Robyn Stewart's idea of {lutu'lu'} as the Klingon version of 'whom' got a nod and an explicit lack of contradiction [from Okrand]. {naDev tlhInganpu' lutu'lu'} is grammatical, but the {lu-} is more often left off." [ghunchu'wI']<br>
<br>
"{lutu'lu'} does NOT translate as 'whom' in any way at all. It is just that in English, most people use the word 'who' when formally they should be using 'whom', much like most Klingons use the word {tu'lu'} when they should be using {lutu'lu'}. In other words, the more formally correct sentence is {tlhInganpu' lutu'lu'} though most Klingons most of the time would say {tlhInganpu' tu'lu'}." [charghwI']<br>
</blockquote><div><br></div><div><br></div><div>Once in college, I noticed I said "there's" when I should have said "there are" (eg, "There's two people waiting outside."). Then I started noticing myself making this mistake all the time. Then I started noticing other well-educated people making this mistake all the time. Sometimes a linguistics habit is so ingrained, you don't notice the grammar. I doubt Klingons even notice when they say {tu'lu'} instead of {lutu'lu'}.</div>
<div><br></div><div>bI'reng</div></div></div></div>
_______________________________________________
Tlhingan-hol mailing list
[email protected]
http://mail.kli.org/mailman/listinfo/tlhingan-hol
![[KLI Member]](/pics/KLImemberbutton.gif "[KLI Member]"){kind=small}