[1529] in tlhIngan-Hol
mumaw'moH [conjunction]mey
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU)
Sun Sep 12 11:33:49 1993
Reply-To: "Klingon Language List" <tlhIngan-Hol@village.boston.ma.us>
From: DSTRADER@delphi.com
To: "Klingon Language List" <tlhIngan-Hol@village.boston.ma.us>
Date: Sun, 12 Sep 1993 07:27:25 -0400 (EDT)
X-Vms-To: IN%"tlhIngan-Hol@village.boston.ma.us"
DavidSturm:
>I think the solution is to consider the N-N-joq phrase as similar to the
sentence pronoun 'e'. Since that is considered singular in number when used,
this would lead me to believe that in Klingon, the N-N-joq phrase is closest
to the sentence-as-an-object/subject idea. I would just use singular, and
expect that a Klingon would have no trouble with it.
>(Of course, I might just be becoming a lifeless joqbag, or joqless lifebag...)
Don't worry, your status as a lifeless joqbag does not detract from your
idea on conjunctions. The solution of magically transforming _*ALL*_
noun-noun-conj. phrase to singular is highly convenient. I can't really
argue, since I originally asked the question because I had not even one
smidgin of the faintest idea on the plurality of a n-n-conj phrase in a
sentence. But, this logic, if it is to remain consistent with all
conjunctions, would have to make n-n-je phrases singular also. I have no
opposition to this (how could I?; Okrand has never murmured one syllable
about plurality of conjunctions) but someone else might.
Well, there's almost no way around it; someone will have to ask the pabpo''a'
about it. Until then, I support the idea of universally singular
conjunctive phrases.
Guido#1 ---*
ghItlh 'o' (Klingon for "Post Scriptum")
Delphi, my branch of Internet, has been experiencing minor E-mail
problems, viz., they've only been able to deliver 25% of all Delphi
members' mail since Sept.2. No one can tell how long the backlog will last, so
some
of my messages maybe several days out of date. pagh mISmoHjaj..
