<html xmlns:o="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" xmlns:w="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:word" xmlns:m="http://schemas.microsoft.com/office/2004/12/omml" xmlns="http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-html40"><head><meta http-equiv=Content-Type content="text/html; charset=utf-8"><meta name=Generator content="Microsoft Word 15 (filtered medium)"><style><!--
/* Font Definitions */
@font-face
{font-family:"Cambria Math";
panose-1:2 4 5 3 5 4 6 3 2 4;}
@font-face
{font-family:Calibri;
panose-1:2 15 5 2 2 2 4 3 2 4;}
/* Style Definitions */
p.MsoNormal, li.MsoNormal, div.MsoNormal
{margin:0in;
margin-bottom:.0001pt;
font-size:11.0pt;
font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;}
a:link, span.MsoHyperlink
{mso-style-priority:99;
color:blue;
text-decoration:underline;}
a:visited, span.MsoHyperlinkFollowed
{mso-style-priority:99;
color:#954F72;
text-decoration:underline;}
.MsoChpDefault
{mso-style-type:export-only;}
@page WordSection1
{size:8.5in 11.0in;
margin:1.0in 1.0in 1.0in 1.0in;}
div.WordSection1
{page:WordSection1;}
--></style></head><body lang=EN-US link=blue vlink="#954F72"><div class=WordSection1><p class=MsoNormal>Sure, I could say “didn’t add” instead of “got rid of.” It doesn’t change the point.</p><p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal>I don’t think “got rid of” is really wrong, anyway. Okrand has told the story many times, and it’s always framed in terms of him wanting there to be no “to be,” not that “to be” never entered into it. His deliberate avoidance is along the lines of “English has ‘to be.’ I want to make it different, so no ‘to be.’” To me, that’s getting rid of “to be.” Rejecting it.</p><p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal>-- <br>SuStel<br>http://trimboli.name</p><p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p><div style='mso-element:para-border-div;border:none;border-top:solid #E1E1E1 1.0pt;padding:3.0pt 0in 0in 0in'><p class=MsoNormal style='border:none;padding:0in'><b>From: </b><a href="mailto:daniel@dadap.net">Daniel Dadap</a><br><b>Sent: </b>Saturday, February 9, 2019 11:01 PM<br><b>To: </b><a href="mailto:tlhingan-hol@kli.org">tlhingan-hol@kli.org</a><br><b>Subject: </b>Re: [tlhIngan Hol] ordering and scope of adverbials relative totimestamps</p></div><p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p><div><p class=MsoNormal style='margin-bottom:12.0pt'>On Feb 9, 2019, at 19:30, SuStel <<a href="mailto:sustel@trimboli.name">sustel@trimboli.name</a>> wrote:<o:p></o:p></p></div><blockquote style='margin-top:5.0pt;margin-bottom:5.0pt'><div><p class=MsoNormal>He didn't get rid of <i>to be</i> because of a profound connection to Klingon culture.<o:p></o:p></p></div></blockquote><p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p><div><p class=MsoNormal>He didn’t “get rid” of “to be”. There was never any “to be” to get rid of. Many languages on Earth also lack copula verbs, and the lack or presence of such verbs is no more reflective of culture on Qo'noS than it is on Earth.<o:p></o:p></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p></div><p class=MsoNormal>Okrand made many decisions about the language, and while many of them were culturally motivated (e.g. phrasing things that would be “which” questions as commands - “paq DalaDbogh yIngu'!”), most of them weren’t. While I’d be happy to accept that things like the qualification suffixes, or grammatical gender being based on ability to use speech (or being a body part) have something to do with Klingon culture, I think it would be a stretch to claim that things like SVO, agglutination, lack of tense, etc., are reflective of culture.<o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p></div></body></html>