[85767] in tlhIngan-Hol
Re: Once more into the ship in which I fled
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (ghunchu'wI' 'utlh)
Sat Jun 20 18:22:47 2009
From: "ghunchu'wI' 'utlh" <qunchuy@alcaco.net>
To: "tlhingan-hol@kli.org" <tlhingan-hol@kli.org>
In-Reply-To: <287479.66887.qm@web33805.mail.mud.yahoo.com>
Date: Sat, 20 Jun 2009 18:20:13 -0400
Errors-to: tlhingan-hol-bounce@kli.org
Reply-to: tlhingan-hol@kli.org
On Jun 20, 2009, at 4:35 PM, McArdle <mcardle09@yahoo.com> wrote:
> The last time this topic was raised (by Holtej last October), there
> were a number of responses discussing the merits of his proposal,
> and none at all suggesting that the whole discussion was pointless.
What proposal?
Holtej gave a good attempt at expressing various roles of relative
clause heads using the known grammar. He was exploring where Klingon
fit in the "accessibility heirarchy" and specifically whether it
violated a linguistic universal. The responses were pretty consistent
in rejecting the resulting sentences as carrying the intended idea.
The obvious difference between his message and yours is that you had
already invented grammar to make the meaning you wanted possible to
express. The responses to that ought rightly to be pretty consistent
in scolding you. If you can't figure out how to say what you want, you
shouldn't just make up a way. At least not if you're calling it
Klongon grammar.
-- ghunchu'wI'
