[tlhIngan Hol] not repeating the 'e' of a sao

[Will Martin]

I sincerely recommend that it might be more effective to write lots of stuff in Klingon (forcing you to learn more vocabulary because you’ll start memorizing things you otherwise would have simply looked up every time) and naturally encounter episodes of complex grammar and make the decision to either explore the details of that complexity, or just make more, simpler sentences to convey the same thought.

The tendency to not write much in Klingon, but make an academic study of the potential for complexity in the grammar essentially creates a hypothetical you who could eventually learn to use the language well enough to need one of these complex sentences in order to say something. You aren’t exploring things useful to you. You are exploring things that would be useful to a hypothetical you who would hypothetically speak Klingon so well that simpler sentences would be boring and you’d want to know how far you can push the grammar while hypothetically speaking Klingon.

I say that as a lazy, hypothetical Klingon speaker who has memorized a small vocabulary years ago and looks up a lot of stuff whenever I read or write things now, and I rarely read long Klingon passages because it takes so much time to look up so many words.

For whatever else I may have done or been, these days, I see my role on this list primarily as a character actor providing occasional comic relief.

charghwI’ vaghnerya’ngan

rInpa’ bomnIS be’’a’ pI’.

> On Aug 5, 2020, at 5:39 AM, mayqel qunen'oS <mihkoun at gmail.com> wrote:
> 
> charghwI':
>> Leaving aside the {nejwI’} I don’t see why your First Question suggestion wouldn’t be allowed,
>> though it might be of limited productivity, since whatever else you do, you’ll be better understood
>> if {‘e’} goes between the sentence it represents and the sentence it serves as object for. Attempts
>> to combine verb conjunctions and SAO might tempt you to compose sentences that would embed
>> the sentence represented by {‘e’} within the sentence using it as an object, and even if this isn’t
>> considered to be illegal grammar, it won’t be easily understood, and it might be considered annoying.
> 
> Ok, thanks for sharing your opinion. I'm not sure about all this
> myself, which is the reason I asked in the first place. As always, my
> interest in these kinds of questions is to understand how things work,
> and what the limits actually are.
> 
> And even if the questions of this thread were indeed answered by a
> definite "yes, it is correct to construct these kinds of sentences",
> it wouldn't be my first choice to actually use them, since they
> could/would be confusing to the average reader.
> 
> ~ Qa'yIn
> _______________________________________________
> tlhIngan-Hol mailing list
> tlhIngan-Hol at lists.kli.org
> http://lists.kli.org/listinfo.cgi/tlhingan-hol-kli.org

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.kli.org/pipermail/tlhingan-hol-kli.org/attachments/20200805/6447ec4e/attachment-0002.htm>