[97612] in tlhIngan-Hol
Re: [Tlhingan-hol] Greetings from Maltz
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Brent Kesler)
Fri Nov 15 08:38:32 2013
In-Reply-To: <ACF6622D959A8842A81E4471BA56A7E001F7F19B@xm-mbx-04-prod.ad.uchicago.edu>
Date: Fri, 15 Nov 2013 08:38:14 -0500
From: Brent Kesler <brent.of.all.people@gmail.com>
To: tlhingan-hol@kli.org
Errors-To: tlhingan-hol-bounces@kli.org
--===============5178696955913458852==
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=20cf30780db061a19e04eb374f4e
--20cf30780db061a19e04eb374f4e
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
On Wed, Nov 13, 2013 at 9:37 AM, Steven Boozer <sboozer@uchicago.edu> wrote:
> At {qep'a' loSDIch} "Robyn Stewart's idea of {lutu'lu'} as the Klingon
> version of 'whom' got a nod and an explicit lack of contradiction [from
> Okrand]. {naDev tlhInganpu' lutu'lu'} is grammatical, but the {lu-} is more
> often left off." [ghunchu'wI']
>
> "{lutu'lu'} does NOT translate as 'whom' in any way at all. It is just
> that in English, most people use the word 'who' when formally they should
> be using 'whom', much like most Klingons use the word {tu'lu'} when they
> should be using {lutu'lu'}. In other words, the more formally correct
> sentence is {tlhInganpu' lutu'lu'} though most Klingons most of the time
> would say {tlhInganpu' tu'lu'}." [charghwI']
>
Once in college, I noticed I said "there's" when I should have said "there
are" (eg, "There's two people waiting outside."). Then I started noticing
myself making this mistake all the time. Then I started noticing other
well-educated people making this mistake all the time. Sometimes a
linguistics habit is so ingrained, you don't notice the grammar. I doubt
Klingons even notice when they say {tu'lu'} instead of {lutu'lu'}.
bI'reng
--20cf30780db061a19e04eb374f4e
Content-Type: text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
<div dir=3D"ltr"><br><div class=3D"gmail_extra"><br><br><div class=3D"gmail=
_quote">On Wed, Nov 13, 2013 at 9:37 AM, Steven Boozer <span dir=3D"ltr">&l=
t;<a href=3D"mailto:sboozer@uchicago.edu" target=3D"_blank">sboozer@uchicag=
o.edu</a>></span> wrote:<br>
<div>=A0</div><blockquote class=3D"gmail_quote" style=3D"margin:0 0 0 .8ex;=
border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">At {qep'a' loSDIch} &q=
uot;Robyn Stewart's idea of {lutu'lu'} as the Klingon version o=
f 'whom' got a nod and an explicit lack of contradiction [from Okra=
nd]. {naDev tlhInganpu' lutu'lu'} is grammatical, but the {lu-}=
is more often left off." =A0[ghunchu'wI']<br>
<br>
"{lutu'lu'} does NOT translate as 'whom' in any way at=
all. It is just that in English, most people use the word 'who' wh=
en formally they should be using 'whom', much like most Klingons us=
e the word {tu'lu'} when they should be using {lutu'lu'}. I=
n other words, the more formally correct sentence is {tlhInganpu' lutu&=
#39;lu'} though most Klingons most of the time would say {tlhInganpu=
9; tu'lu'}." =A0[charghwI']<br>
</blockquote><div><br></div><div><br></div><div>Once in college, I noticed =
I said "there's" when I should have said "there are"=
; (eg, "There's two people waiting outside."). Then I started=
noticing myself making this mistake all the time. Then I started noticing =
other well-educated people making this mistake all the time. Sometimes a li=
nguistics habit is so ingrained, you don't notice the grammar. I doubt =
Klingons even notice when they say {tu'lu'} instead of {lutu'lu=
'}.</div>
<div><br></div><div>bI'reng</div></div></div></div>
--20cf30780db061a19e04eb374f4e--
--===============5178696955913458852==
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Disposition: inline
_______________________________________________
Tlhingan-hol mailing list
Tlhingan-hol@kli.org
http://mail.kli.org/mailman/listinfo/tlhingan-hol
--===============5178696955913458852==--
