[87338] in tlhIngan-Hol
RE: Double negatives
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (blake.turner@yotes.collegeofidaho.)
Mon Nov 30 18:04:58 2009
From: <blake.turner@yotes.collegeofidaho.edu>
To: <tlhingan-hol@kli.org>
Date: Mon, 30 Nov 2009 16:03:35 -0700
In-Reply-To: <f1d476f10911301438p7ce40fe8r4745479492aef9c6@mail.gmail.com>
Errors-to: tlhingan-hol-bounce@kli.org
Reply-to: tlhingan-hol@kli.org
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'
>
>
>
