My own opinion, and not based on any specific canon or instruction, is that you should always try to use the {lu-} prefix when appropriate, including for {lutu'lu'}, but that you shouldn't worry about it if you forget it somewhere (even if it's a formal situation) and shouldn't bother to correct others when they leave it off. janSIy ________________________________ From: tlhIngan-Hol <tlhingan-hol-bounces@lists.kli.org> on behalf of luis.chaparro@web.de <luis.chaparro@web.de> Sent: Thursday, October 7, 2021 9:03 AM To: tlhingan-hol@kli.org <tlhingan-hol@kli.org> Subject: Re: [tlhIngan Hol] {'e' qa'} "instead of" with quotations
This is one of those cases of Okrand giving us what appears to be a fixed expression that doesn't follow the rules. I'm not sure it makes sense to ask what the subject of qa' is here.
Ok, thank you! I guess that's similar to what happens with the expression *qar'a'*. By the way, thinking of another fixed expression, *tu'lu'*: I know Okrand compared it to English *there's* referring to plural, you were discussing that some weeks ago. But since I'm not an English native speaker, I don't know know how acceptable this use is in formal texts. Or in other words: when I write a formal text in Klingon, should I use *lutu'lu'* for a plural object, or is the form *tu'lu'* also acceptable? _______________________________________________ tlhIngan-Hol mailing list tlhIngan-Hol@lists.kli.org http://lists.kli.org/listinfo.cgi/tlhingan-hol-kli.org