[tlhIngan Hol] A thought on the irrealis construction

De'vID de.vid.jonpin at gmail.com
Mon Nov 7 01:31:08 PST 2016

On 7 November 2016 at 10:21, Lieven <levinius at gmx.de> wrote:
> Actually, I'm pretty happy to be able to say now {latlh loD SoH net
> jalchugh, vaj qaHoH.}, but I would have preferred it be done with a
> different kind of suffix. But Okrand told us this weekend, that according to
> Maltz, we should have received nearly all of the existing suffixes - but
> there may be more, perhabs.

It would be very weird, at this point, to get any more (let's say,
"modern {ta' Hol}") suffixes, considering the volume of canon we have.
What are the chances that a commonplace suffix would fail to appear in
important Klingon works such as {paq'batlh} and {Hamlet}?


More information about the tlhIngan-Hol mailing list