<html><head>
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=utf-8">
</head>
<body>
<div class="moz-cite-prefix">On 11/22/2022 8:19 AM, zrajm via
tlhIngan-Hol wrote:<br>
</div>
<blockquote type="cite" cite="mid:CA+7afY3bHP6sD-y1a6ZRiJmDA-5t2D+vh4P24OJi=YEmbAsX2Q@mail.gmail.com">
<div dir="ltr">
<div class="gmail_quote">Though it makes me think that Klingon 2
might abbreviate even more and just say «je» alone (skipping
the verb altogether). – This is a common practice in (at least
Swedish) sign language, though it seems a bit weird from an
English speaker's perspective.
<div><br>
</div>
<div>Do you think that you (prior to this discussion) would've
understood if just a naked «je» was used? Or is that to
abbreviate too much?</div>
</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
<p>I'd have understood, but just understanding doesn't count for
much. If in English I said things like "I want pizza" and "I think
that was very nice," and someone with me kept saying "Also!" right
after me, I'd get it. That doesn't mean they're using the language
correctly.</p>
<p>I've been studying Welsh for a while. Welsh has a gazillion ways
to say <i>yes</i> or <i>no,</i> and you have to pick the right
one for the right circumstance. If someone asked me <i>Wyt ti'n
hoffi cwrw?</i> ("Do you like beer?") and I answered <i>Naddo</i>
("No" about a past-tense action) instead of <i>Nac ydw</i>
(literally "I am not"), I would have used the language incorrectly
but I daresay I would be understood. I'd just sound like an idiot.<br>
</p>
<pre class="moz-signature" cols="72">--
SuStel
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="http://trimboli.name">http://trimboli.name</a></pre>
</body>
</html>