[tlhIngan Hol] prefix trick formal or informal

[Will Martin]

Good answer to the question. Meanwhile, the example brings up the issue of religious speech. Religions don’t necessarily follow the lines of “anything acceptable by the general public as formal works in religious contexts”. The second implication of the question requires actual canon within the context of religious speech.

“Love thy neighbor” is not formal speech. It’s religious speech. “Thou shalt not kill” is not formal speech. It is religious speech. It may have been formal speech when translated into the language of the first generally distributed translation of the Bible, but now, it is spoken only in religious context. Legal context is formal, but it wouldn’t use those words. Academics use formal speech, though some of that is jargon, as is some legal speech, etc. Newscasters use formal speech. Journalists use formal speech. Teachers use and teach formal speech.

Meanwhile, informal speech similarly has many dialects, and slang is a form of jargon, though perhaps it is understood by a larger group of people.

pItlh

charghwI’ ‘utlh
(ghaH, ghaH, -Daj)




> On Jul 1, 2022, at 8:56 AM, SuStel <sustel at trimboli.name> wrote:
> 
> On 7/1/2022 8:05 AM, D qunen'oS wrote:
>> Is the prefix trick version less formal than the other?
> 
> I see no evidence that the prefix trick is informal in any way. It appears to just be shortening, not informality. In the post in which Okrand explains it, he just says things like "may be used" and "is interpreted as."
> 
> -- 
> SuStel
> http://trimboli.name
> 
> _______________________________________________
> 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/20220701/4739f1cb/attachment-0015.htm>