[897] in tlhIngan-Hol
-'egh vs. -chuq
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU)
Mon May 17 18:04:21 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: Captain Krankor <krankor@codex.prds.cdx.mot.com>
To: "Klingon Language List" <tlhIngan-Hol@village.boston.ma.us>
Date: Mon, 17 May 93 15:52:00 -0400
mark sent a nice post about the -'egh/-chuq thing, which he concludes with:
>I think I've managed to confuse this case rather nicely.
THIS was my main point. I was NOT trying to expound any rule or profound
insight about the matter, I am not looking to provide definitive clarifications
on the issue, and I never really intended for this to become a big debate.
My only point was that the issue is sufficiently ambiguous as to give Okrand
the benefit of the doubt vis-a-vis the sentence on the tape. This is because
I'm reluctant to criticise him unless it's completely clear he's in error, NOT
because I think he said it in the best way or am advocating that particular
form of usage.
--Krankor
