[214] in tlhIngan-Hol
re: double negs
dcctdw@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (dcctdw@ATHENA.MIT.EDU)
Sun Feb 16 19:20:55 1992
Errors-To: tlhIngan-Hol-request@village.boston.ma.us
Reply-To: "Klingon Language List" <tlhIngan-Hol@village.boston.ma.us>
From: krankor@IMA.ISC.COM (Captain Krankor)
To: "Klingon Language List" <tlhIngan-Hol@village.boston.ma.us>
Date: Sat, 15 Feb 92 02:56:45 -0500
We had 3 sentences: pagh vISopbe', vay' vISopbe', and pagh vISop. 2 and 3
clearly seem ok, with 3 probably being the best. Certainly 1 is *grammatically
*
correct, the question is whether it is stylisticly kosher. Here is my
take on it, which is *entirely speculatory* and *not* supported by any
evidence. Which is to say, I'm not officially proposing this as pabpo' :)
My guess is, regarding 1: Klingon grammarians probably end up getting into
fist fights over this.
So I would avoid double negatives, just to be safe (physically {{:-)
--Krankor
Oh, yeah, I do have the vulcan stuff *somewhere*, but not easy to locate.
If you can convince me that I'm the *only* one on here who can lay his
hands on it, I'll try to find it, but only as a last resort; it'll be
quite a project to find.
