[738] in tlhIngan-Hol
Re: Suffix rules
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU)
Fri Apr 30 17:36:26 1993
Errors-To: tlhIngan-Hol-request@village.boston.ma.us
Errors-To: tlhIngan-Hol-request@village.boston.ma.us
Errors-To: tlhIngan-Hol-request@village.boston.ma.us
Errors-To: tlhIngan-Hol-request@village.boston.ma.us
Errors-To: tlhIngan-Hol-request@village.boston.ma.us
Errors-To: tlhIngan-Hol-request@village.boston.ma.us
Errors-To: tlhIngan-Hol-request@village.boston.ma.us
Errors-To: tlhIngan-Hol-request@village.boston.ma.us
Reply-To: "Klingon Language List" <tlhIngan-Hol@village.boston.ma.us>
From: Mark_Nudelman@go.com
To: "Klingon Language List" <tlhIngan-Hol@village.boston.ma.us>
Date: 30 Apr 93 13:20
Someone writes:
but `jabbi'iDvamwi'` = "this my email message" = "this email message of
mine" has two class 4 noun suffixes. How (without a circumlocution so wordy
that people are tempted to break the rule for brevity) to say this legally?
There seems to be a case for relaxing the rule against two suffixes of the
same class number on the same word.
Well, one can certainly say "jabbI'IDvam vIghItlhbogh",
"this email message which I wrote". Is this circumlocution
too wordy? I'm afraid I must agree with David Barron's
recent editorial; tlhIngan Hol is what it is; TKD is quite
explicit on the rule against using multiple suffixes of the
same type. We may not like it, anymore than an
English-speaker likes the lack of articles in Mandarin or
the highly inflected nature of Latin, but we can't change
things arbitrarily.
--nachHegh
Mark_Nudelman@go.com
