[87317] in tlhIngan-Hol
Re: Double negatives
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Christopher Doty)
Mon Nov 30 16:21:11 2009
In-Reply-To: <4B143230.5030202@trimboli.name>
From: Christopher Doty <suomichris@gmail.com>
Date: Mon, 30 Nov 2009 13:19:09 -0800
To: tlhingan-hol@kli.org
Errors-to: tlhingan-hol-bounce@kli.org
Reply-to: tlhingan-hol@kli.org
On Mon, Nov 30, 2009 at 12:59, David Trimboli <david@trimboli.name> wrote:
> I missed this part on my last message. I think it's just another
> indication that Klingon as presented by Okrand isn't quite as black and
> white as you deem it to be. TKD gives us the basic rules only. We
> sometimes learn more complicated rules. Sometimes we learn about
> individual exceptions. New rules seem to blatantly contradict
> established examples. But we never get anything that says "This is
> absolutely the only way this works; don't even bother questioning it."
Well, I'm not sure that I deem it to be anything except that it is.
Having said that, there are lots of folks here who point to TKD when
things are in doubt; I was just doing the same. Okrand clearly
outlines the meanings of <-be'> based on its position, which I thus
assumed was correct.
Haven't said that, I'm not sure that TKD isn't black and white. It
seems like, barring further evidence, we should assume that TKD is
completely accurate. Sure, there might have been a rule introduced at
some other point that not everyone knows about, but those (at least
that I've see mentioned on here) elaborate on the grammar more, but
don't directly contradict TKD...
