[Tlhingan-hol] Beginner Story: nuq bop bom 'ay''a' wej

[Wiechu]

tuQaHpu' 'e' Hoch Satlho'qu'. vIqaw 'e' vInID. vIghojqu'ta' vIneH 'ej
vIyajqu'ta' vIneH.

--
Sincerely,

Daniel Danecki (Wiechu)


2011/11/5 lojmIt tI'wI' nuv <lojmitti7wi7nuv at gmail.com>

> I'm with ghunchu'wI' and Sustel on this one.
>
> The most awkward part of dealing with the Klingon language is that Marc
> Okrand, THE authority on the language... has not really spoken it all that
> well for most of the history of the language. There are a lot of mistakes.
> Most of the time, his examples are of good Klingon, but the number of
> errors comes close to the number of insightful, new bits about the language
> that he gives us. Many of the mistakes become canon and we have to treat
> them like they aren't mistakes.
>
> Ever wonder why {neH} doesn't take {'e'} like all the other verbs used in
> Sentence-As-Object constructions? Ever wonder why the second verb in
> Sentence-As-Object constructions never takes a Type 7 suffix? These rules
> are based on errors Okrand noticed that he had made after they became
> canon. The rules make his errors in those cases the correct way to speak
> Klingon. But Okrand never made it a rule that you shouldn't use {lu-} in
> {lutu'lu'}. He just goofed and didn't catch it. It happens. Deal with it.
>
> In general, we have to decide what to politely ignore and what to take
> seriously. On this particular issue (Do we use {lutu'lu'} when the direct
> object is plural?), we've been through this a bunch of times. The consensus
> tends to be, that the right way to say it is {lutu'lu'}, but forgetting the
> opening {lu-} is a common, tolerable mistake.
>
> Think of it as "ain't" vs. "isn't". While I know it isn't right, I ain't
> giving you a hard time if you say it wrong. That doesn't make your error
> the correct way to say it. {lutu'lu'} simply is the right way to say it.
> It's not old-fashioned and on its way out. It's not a hypercorrection. It
> is the gold standard. If you wish to speak proper Klingon, don't forget the
> {lu-}.
>
> If you screw up and omit the {lu-}, nobody is going to give you a hard
> time about it. There is no {lu-} for he X, she X, it X, they X, he X him,
> he X her, he X it, he X them, she X him, she X her, she X it, she X them,
> it X him, it X her, it X it, it X them, but there is a {lu-} for they X
> him, they X her, and they X it. It's the easiest part of the prefix chart
> to get wrong. We all do it at some point in our learning the language. Even
> Okrand.
>
> But being a common error doesn't make it right. It especially does not
> make it preferable.
>
>  lojmIt tI'wI' nuv
> lojmIttI7wI7nuv at gmail.com
>
>
>
> On Nov 5, 2011, at 11:12 AM, ghunchu'wI' 'utlh wrote:
>
> On Nov 5, 2011, at 4:40 AM, Wiechu <ddanecki at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> However in light of this, how do you explain example from TKD 4.2.5
> { naDev puqpu' tu'lu' } ?
>
>
> *I* explain it as an error.
>
> There are other obvious errors in TKD, including {lujpu' jIH} on page 29
> and {yIHaghqu'} "study him/her well" on page 48.
>
> -- ghunchu'wI'
> _______________________________________________
> Tlhingan-hol mailing list
> Tlhingan-hol at stodi.digitalkingdom.org
> http://stodi.digitalkingdom.org/mailman/listinfo/tlhingan-hol
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Tlhingan-hol mailing list
> Tlhingan-hol at stodi.digitalkingdom.org
> http://stodi.digitalkingdom.org/mailman/listinfo/tlhingan-hol
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://stodi.digitalkingdom.org/pipermail/tlhingan-hol/attachments/20111105/5fc409ec/attachment.html>