[87013] in tlhIngan-Hol
Re: The topic marker -'e'
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Christopher Doty)
Mon Nov 23 19:38:37 2009
In-Reply-To: <67358B00-03BD-40E2-8F7C-C1B884A00399@alcaco.net>
From: Christopher Doty <suomichris@gmail.com>
Date: Mon, 23 Nov 2009 16:36:21 -0800
To: tlhingan-hol@kli.org
Errors-to: tlhingan-hol-bounce@kli.org
Reply-to: tlhingan-hol@kli.org
I am rather tired of debating this point. If Klingon for the Galactic
Traveller outlines things that Klingons "actually" say which Okrand
labels "ungrammatical," he is using a softer definition equivalent to
"improper" or "incorrect." Fluent speakers of languages do not
intentionally say things which are ungrammatical.
On Mon, Nov 23, 2009 at 16:29, ghunchu'wI' <qunchuy@alcaco.net> wrote:
> On Nov 23, 2009, at 7:07 PM, André Müller wrote:
>
>> 2009/11/23 Christopher Doty <suomichris@gmail.com>
>>> This is kind of a silly argument, though, because Okrand's work
>>> doesn't outline ungrammatical possibilities, it outlines grammatical
>>> possibilities...
>>>
>> Okrand's work doesn't outline ungrammatical possibilities, this
>> means that
>> we cannot be sure if a sentence is ungrammatical, unless we're told
>> so by
>> Himself.
>
> peqIm! _qIb lengwI' tlhIngan Hol_ bolaDnISqu'! pabHa'bogh mu'mey
> Delbej.
>
> -- ghunchu'wI'
>
>
>
