[84062] in tlhIngan-Hol
Re: Some ?New Official Marc Okrand
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Doq)
Sun Jan 27 00:50:55 2008
From: Doq <doq@embarqmail.com>
To: tlhingan-hol@kli.org
In-Reply-To: <59EFA2A8-1840-4DBC-A252-EF1472ECF78C@insightbb.com>
Date: Sun, 27 Jan 2008 00:49:38 -0500
Errors-to: tlhingan-hol-bounce@kli.org
Reply-to: tlhingan-hol@kli.org
DoS Dabogh mu'tlheghvaD, wot <<neH>> vIlo'DI', DIp <<'e'>> vIlo'
vIneHbe'.
Doq
On Jan 26, 2008, at 6:49 PM, Alan Anderson wrote:
> [http://www.allyngibson.net/st-const.html]
>
> On Jan 26, 2008, at 5:44 PM, Doq wrote:
>
>> Sounds like Okrand's Klingon is slipping. He used {'e' vIneH}, when
>> he
>> explains in TKD that {neH} doesn't need {'e'}.
>
> Yeah, this is one of those exceptions without a good "in character"
> explanation (the real reason is to account for the resubtitled
> {qama'pu' jonta' neH} line), and such exceptions sometimes end up
> being ignored in canon. TKD's wording is actually a bit stronger
> than "doesn't need". It says {'e'} is "not used" with {neH}.
