[1896] in tlhIngan-Hol
Conjunctions
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU)
Sat Oct 30 12:48:17 1993
Reply-To: "Klingon Language List" <tlhIngan-Hol@klingon.east.sun.com>
From: DSTRADER@delphi.com
To: "Klingon Language List" <tlhIngan-Hol@klingon.east.sun.com>
Date: Sat, 30 Oct 1993 12:45:11 -0400 (EDT)
X-Vms-To: IN%"tlhIngan-Hol@klingon.east.sun.com"
A while back I posted a question on this list asking which of the
following two sentences were correct?:
{yaS HoD joq wIlegh} or {yaS HoD joq DIlegh}
The response that it got was not what I was wanting. charghwI' argued
the redundancy of this question based on the logic that it should be
clear to the speaker whether or not he/she/it is looking at just an
officer or a captain or both of them. This is all semantic. I was really
asking this question to get some info about the grammar by which
Klingon conjunction are governed. {joq} indicates uncertainty of
plurality. It works for sentences like this:
{Duleghqang 'oSwI' gharwI' joq}/{nIleghqang 'oSwI' gharwI' joq}
How do pronominal prefixes work for {joq} phrases. For that matter, how
can we be certain that {Duj tIj yaS HoD ghap} and {Duj lutIj yaS HoD je}
are correct? We can't. Okrand never gave any reference for how N-N-Conj.
phrases were to be used with pronominal prefixes.
vuDraj vIQoyqangqu'
Guido#1, Leader of All Guidos
