[1093] in tlhIngan-Hol
Re: This 'n' That
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU)
Mon Jun 28 14:14:44 1993
Reply-To: "Klingon Language List" <tlhIngan-Hol@village.boston.ma.us>
From: Randall Holmes <holmes@diamond.idbsu.edu>
To: "Klingon Language List" <tlhIngan-Hol@village.boston.ma.us>
Date: Mon, 28 Jun 93 11:19:12 -0600
It seems nearly inevitable that pronouns would either take type 5
noun suffixes or have forms with similar intent; the other forms of
noun suffixes seem inappropriate. Wouldn't one be strongly tempted
to say
* chaHvaD qaHoHtaH
"I am killing you for them/at their behest/for their sake"
under the appropriate circumstances?
This with regard to the application of type 5 noun suffixes to 'e'
to resolve certain perplexities.
It would not be likely that the bare pronoun would suffice; a pronoun
already leaves too much to context for its syntactical role to be left
vague as well.
At any rate I use type 5 suffixes on pronouns (although not 'e')
extensively in my latest offering.
--"Randall Holmes" mughlaw'wI'
P.S. It would be unsurprising if these forms were irregular, however!
