[tlhIngan Hol] Imperatives and {-be'}

[Alan Anderson]

On Fri, Jul 7, 2017 at 9:53 AM, SuStel <sustel at trimboli.name> wrote:

> On 7/7/2017 6:09 AM, De'vID wrote:
>
> At issue is what "used with" means. You interpret it to mean "used
> anywhere within the same verb". Another Interpretation is that using a
> negation suffix "with" an imperative verb means to negate the whole verb
> (that is, "with" is not identical to "in").
>
> Fair enough. As I've said, I don't think using *-be'* outside of the
> commanding part of the word is an unreasonable thing to ask for. But I do
> claim that "used with" meaning "in the word" is a MUCH more obvious and
> natural interpretation than "that part of the sense of the word that tells
> someone to do something." If Okrand meant that, he didn't say it well... or
> at all.
>
There are quite a few things that aren't said well, or at all, in The
Klingon Dictionary. That's even made explicit in the introduction to the
"grammatical sketch". But without *ex cathedra* clarifications or clear
examples of usage that goes against TKD's strict pronouncements, we're
usually well served to be as conservative as possible.

On the other hand, when I'm speaking Klingon, I'm going to be following the
rules in my head, not the ones in the book. Most of those head-rules match
the book-rules perfectly, but some of them are emergent rather than
explicit, and some of them potentially will differ from the book-rules in a
few edge cases.

-- ghunchu'wI'
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.kli.org/pipermail/tlhingan-hol-kli.org/attachments/20170707/eb443a48/attachment-0035.htm>