[110209] in tlhIngan-Hol
Re: [tlhIngan Hol] So sarcophagus you say ? hmm..
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Alan Anderson)
Tue Aug 1 11:46:16 2017
X-Original-To: tlhingan-hol@lists.kli.org
In-Reply-To: <CAP7F2cLGB8RZ8PZCGaqTrzAVeEbqhnkDVXOe5iFaNbxWd2PWoQ@mail.gmail.com>
From: Alan Anderson <qunchuy@alcaco.net>
Date: Tue, 1 Aug 2017 11:45:51 -0400
To: Klingon language email discussion forum <tlhingan-hol@kli.org>
Reply-To: tlhingan-hol@kli.org
Errors-To: tlhingan-hol-bounces@lists.kli.org
--===============4535707230065768663==
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="001a11374c8afd9f830555b30b38"
--001a11374c8afd9f830555b30b38
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
On Tue, Aug 1, 2017 at 11:01 AM, mayqel qunenoS <mihkoun@gmail.com> wrote:
> SuStel:
> > using the plural suffix is not so much redundant as explicit
>
> What does this mean ? Don't misunderstand me; I'm not contradicting
> you on this matter. I genuinely don't understand what this sentence
> means.
>
"Redundant" means it's extra information that you don't always need, but
it's there if you want to use it. There are multiple ways to know whether a
Klingon noun is intended as plural. If that information is already
somewhere in the grammar of the sentence, adding the plural-marking suffix
is redundant. It's not necessary, but it is fine to do it anyway.
"Explicit" means it is made absolutely clear by using something you can
point to and say "There, that's what I mean." If you don't want to leave
something unstated, you can say it explicitly.
-- ghunchu'wI'
--001a11374c8afd9f830555b30b38
Content-Type: text/html; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
<div dir=3D"ltr"><div class=3D"gmail_extra"><div class=3D"gmail_quote">On T=
ue, Aug 1, 2017 at 11:01 AM, mayqel qunenoS <span dir=3D"ltr"><<a href=
=3D"mailto:mihkoun@gmail.com" target=3D"_blank">mihkoun@gmail.com</a>></=
span> wrote:<br><blockquote class=3D"gmail_quote" style=3D"margin:0 0 0 .8e=
x;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">SuStel:<br>
<span class=3D"">> using the plural suffix is not so much redundant as e=
xplicit<br>
<br>
</span>What does this mean ? Don't misunderstand me; I'm not contra=
dicting<br>
you on this matter. I genuinely don't understand what this sentence<br>
means.<br></blockquote><div><br>"Redundant" means it's extra =
information that you don't always need, but it's there if you want =
to use it. There are multiple ways to know whether a Klingon noun is intend=
ed as plural. If that information is already somewhere in the grammar of th=
e sentence, adding the plural-marking suffix is redundant. It's not nec=
essary, but it is fine to do it anyway.<br><br>"Explicit" means i=
t is made absolutely clear by using something you can point to and say &quo=
t;There, that's what I mean." If you don't want to leave somet=
hing unstated, you can say it explicitly.<br><br>-- ghunchu'wI'</di=
v></div></div></div>
--001a11374c8afd9f830555b30b38--
--===============4535707230065768663==
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Disposition: inline
_______________________________________________
tlhIngan-Hol mailing list
tlhIngan-Hol@lists.kli.org
http://lists.kli.org/listinfo.cgi/tlhingan-hol-kli.org
--===============4535707230065768663==--
