<html><head><meta http-equiv="content-type" content="text/html; charset=utf-8"></head><body dir="auto"><div dir="ltr"><span></span></div><div dir="ltr"><div dir="ltr"><span></span></div><div dir="ltr"><div dir="ltr"></div><div dir="ltr"><br></div><div dir="ltr">On Mar 26, 2019, at 12:47, SuStel <<a href="mailto:sustel@trimboli.name">sustel@trimboli.name</a>> wrote:<br><br></div><blockquote type="cite"><div dir="ltr"><div class="moz-cite-prefix">On 3/26/2019 10:26 AM, mayqel qunen'oS
wrote:</div></div></blockquote><br><blockquote type="cite"><div dir="ltr"><div class="moz-cite-prefix">But doesn't this reasoning mean that the {tlhIngan maH! taHjaj!}, is</div><blockquote type="cite" cite="mid:CAP7F2cL7=AFFpiH=vXx50mm=S646MVLhLw0EYUD0o=i0+r60cw@mail.gmail.com"><pre class="moz-quote-pre" wrap="">wrong too ? Isn't the {tlhIngan maH! taHjaj!}, actually {tlhIngan maH!
taHjaj 'e'!} ?
I know that it is blasphemous to dare and question something which has
been celebrated as a feat of linguistic ingenuity.. I really do. But,
- holy sith ! -, I'm sure as hell, that if a mere mortal had come up
with this phrase, he would have been executed on the spot.</pre>
</blockquote>
<p><b>tlhIngan maH taHjaj</b> is (a) a slogan, and (b) not
canonical. As a slogan, it's not going to be careful to ensure
everyone knows what the antecedent of its elided pronouns are. As
a non-canonical sentence, it's not a data point in what can and
cannot be said.</p>
<p></p></div></blockquote><br>
</div><div dir="ltr">Once in a while, I think to myself “hey, it could also be parsed as {tlhIngan maHtaHjaj}!”. Then I remember that {-jaj} isn’t supposed to be combined with an aspect suffix (even though it sometimes apparently is). Then I forget again, and the cycle starts anew.</div></div></body></html>