[89706] in tlhIngan-Hol
Re: Redundancy
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (MorphemeAddict)
Thu Sep 15 13:36:41 2011
In-Reply-To: <C156260F-7C38-423D-A2E7-3DF1A6D3C03C@gmail.com>
From: MorphemeAddict <lytlesw@gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 15 Sep 2011 13:31:46 -0400
To: tlhingan-hol@kli.org
Errors-to: tlhingan-hol-bounce@kli.org
Reply-to: tlhingan-hol@kli.org
This question, in a different form, has come up before, and the response was
almost universally negative or "we don't know but we haven't seen it done
that way".
lay'tel SIvten
On Thu, Sep 15, 2011 at 1:00 PM, lojmIt tI'wI'nuv <lojmitti7wi7nuv@gmail.com
> wrote:
> We know that Klingons care little for grammatical redundancy, dropping
> plural suffixes where the prefix makes it clear that something is plural,
> etc. So, I was wondering…
> DaHjaj megh wISop be'nalwI'.
>
> Does that make sense to people? I could say, {DaHjaj megh wISop be'nalwI'
> jIH je}, but the {jIH je} really is grammatically redundant, isn't it? I
> mean, you know the speaker had to be part of it, being first person plural
> and all. Right?
>
> pItlh
> lojmIt tI'wI'nuv
>
>
>
>
>
>
