[3360] in tlhIngan-Hol
Re: Use of question words
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU)
Fri Feb 18 18:45:11 1994
Errors-To: tlhIngan-Hol-request@klingon.East.Sun.COM
Errors-To: tlhIngan-Hol-request@klingon.East.Sun.COM
Errors-To: tlhIngan-Hol-request@klingon.East.Sun.COM
Reply-To: "Klingon Language List" <tlhIngan-Hol@klingon.East.Sun.COM>
Errors-To: tlhIngan-Hol-request@klingon.East.Sun.COM
From: Captain Krankor <krankor@codex.prds.cdx.mot.com>
To: "Klingon Language List" <tlhIngan-Hol@klingon.East.Sun.COM>
Date: Fri, 18 Feb 94 16:32:29 -0700
marqemvo':
>Kevinvo':
>
>> The problem [of temporal (and other adverbial) relatives] arises when [you]
>> want to make one clause dependent on another. Our tendency is to do this
>> with the 'e' pronoun. This is fine for most sentences, such as:
>> qama'pu' DIHoH 'e' luSov
>
>(Actually, this should be "qama'pu' DIHoH net Sov", according to 6.2.5 (p.66),
>which Kevin seems (from the example he uses) to be citing without checking it.
>
>Kevin's construction would be correct for "One knows we kill prisoners" if we
>didn't have the precise canonical description of the use of "net" for these
>cases. But that doesn't affect his argument. To continue:)
Can we PLEASE leave correcting to the grammarians? You're WRONG.
That's not what he said. The sentence given was absolutely correct
for "They know that we kill prisoners". They, explicitly. He
didn't use the -lu' suffix, he used the lu- prefix, which is correct
for they/it. Read what it actually says, not what you think it
ought to say. Now I don't know for certain that this is what he
intended, but since we have no evidence that it *isn't*, we must
give him the benefit of the doubt and assume that he said what he
meant.
--Krankor
