mayqel qunen'oS:
I think there's {lu-} missing; it should be {'elmeH chaw'mey luje'lu'ta'bogh}
Indeed.
I think there's something important to clarify here, especially since luis chaparro is a beginner: [...]
And thank you for contributing with your ideas to this topic.
It should be noted that omitting the verb prefix {lu-} is probably the single most common grammatical error in the language. Okrand has done it in canon multiple times. It’s akin to screwing up “who” vs. “whom” in English. Anyone “who” knows the rules knows when to use “whom”, but might mindlessly screw up anyway, and others simply never get it right, in English always using “who” or in Klingon always using the null prefix for all third person subject verbs, even when the subject is plural and the object is singular. An error is still an error, but it’s a common error. -charghwI’, retired.
On Aug 24, 2021, at 7:51 AM, luis.chaparro@web.de wrote:
mayqel qunen'oS:
I think there's {lu-} missing; it should be {'elmeH chaw'mey luje'lu'ta'bogh}
Indeed.
I think there's something important to clarify here, especially since luis chaparro is a beginner: [...]
And thank you for contributing with your ideas to this topic. _______________________________________________ tlhIngan-Hol mailing list tlhIngan-Hol@lists.kli.org http://lists.kli.org/listinfo.cgi/tlhingan-hol-kli.org
On 8/24/2021 1:19 PM, Will Martin wrote:
It should be noted that omitting the verb prefix {lu-} is probably the single most common grammatical error in the language. Okrand has done it in canon multiple times.
It’s akin to screwing up “who” vs. “whom” in English. Anyone “who” knows the rules knows when to use “whom”, but might mindlessly screw up anyway, and others simply never get it right, in English always using “who” or in Klingon always using the null prefix for all third person subject verbs, even when the subject is plural and the object is singular.
There's a difference. Klingons clearly know how to use *lu-* but just forget it sometimes; English speakers usually don't know the difference between /who/ and /whom./ In English, using /who/ as an object has become not only something to ignore, but actually acceptable and even preferred. If you use /whom/ correctly, a lot of people will think your speech is stilted. That does not seem to be the case with Klingon *lu-.* We are told, instead, that omitting *lu-* may be jarring to many Klingons' ears and considered an error, but that it is often overlooked, except in formal situations. KGT also suggests that Klingons' general disagreeableness may be responsible for their not trying too hard to follow the grammatical rule of *rom.* -- SuStel http://trimboli.name
Then there’s all those cases in canon of {tu’lu’} where {lutu’lu’} would be appropriate… -charghwI’, retired.
On Aug 24, 2021, at 1:43 PM, SuStel <sustel@trimboli.name> wrote:
On 8/24/2021 1:19 PM, Will Martin wrote:
It should be noted that omitting the verb prefix {lu-} is probably the single most common grammatical error in the language. Okrand has done it in canon multiple times.
It’s akin to screwing up “who” vs. “whom” in English. Anyone “who” knows the rules knows when to use “whom”, but might mindlessly screw up anyway, and others simply never get it right, in English always using “who” or in Klingon always using the null prefix for all third person subject verbs, even when the subject is plural and the object is singular. There's a difference. Klingons clearly know how to use lu- but just forget it sometimes; English speakers usually don't know the difference between who and whom. In English, using who as an object has become not only something to ignore, but actually acceptable and even preferred. If you use whom correctly, a lot of people will think your speech is stilted. That does not seem to be the case with Klingon lu-. We are told, instead, that omitting lu- may be jarring to many Klingons' ears and considered an error, but that it is often overlooked, except in formal situations. KGT also suggests that Klingons' general disagreeableness may be responsible for their not trying too hard to follow the grammatical rule of rom.
-- SuStel http://trimboli.name _______________________________________________ tlhIngan-Hol mailing list tlhIngan-Hol@lists.kli.org http://lists.kli.org/listinfo.cgi/tlhingan-hol-kli.org
On 8/24/2021 1:55 PM, Will Martin wrote:
Then there’s all those cases in canon of {tu’lu’} where {lutu’lu’} would be appropriate…
Possibly, but I think it's more likely that *tu'lu'* is a fixed expression. It's described separately in TKD and its very first use lacks a seemingly required *lu-.* Whether the fixed expression derives from *lutu'lu'* with a dropped *lu-* is unknown. -- SuStel http://trimboli.name
I thought I remembered initial examples of lutu’lu’ and later examples of tu’lu’ later where lutu’lu’ would have been called for, and when that was pointed out, it just became tu’lu’ by convention, but it’s a very old memory, and I’m not one of the wizards of canon.
On Aug 24, 2021, at 2:15 PM, SuStel <sustel@trimboli.name> wrote:
On 8/24/2021 1:55 PM, Will Martin wrote:
Then there’s all those cases in canon of {tu’lu’} where {lutu’lu’} would be appropriate… Possibly, but I think it's more likely that tu'lu' is a fixed expression. It's described separately in TKD and its very first use lacks a seemingly required lu-. Whether the fixed expression derives from lutu'lu' with a dropped lu- is unknown.
-- SuStel http://trimboli.name <http://trimboli.name/>_______________________________________________ tlhIngan-Hol mailing list tlhIngan-Hol@lists.kli.org http://lists.kli.org/listinfo.cgi/tlhingan-hol-kli.org
On 8/24/2021 9:18 PM, Will Martin wrote:
I thought I remembered initial examples of lutu’lu’ and later examples of tu’lu’ later where lutu’lu’ would have been called for, and when that was pointed out, it just became tu’lu’ by convention, but it’s a very old memory, and I’m not one of the wizards of canon.
I don't think *lutu'lu'* had been used in a canonical sentence, but Okrand has addressed it. First, after qep'a' loSDIch, ghunchu'wI' reported that "Robyn Stewart's idea of *lutu'lu'* as the Klingon version of /whom/ got a nod and an explicit lack of contradiction [from Okrand]. *naDev tlhInganpu' lutu'lu'* is grammatical, but the *lu-* is more often left off." (Voragh sent this to the list 12 July 1998.) In 2014, Okrand gave us most of the rest of the information we needed. See the message here: http://klingon.wiki/En/ThereIs . Instead of /who/whom,/ he compares *tu'lu'* without *lu-* to /there's/ referring to plural things that are there. This seems to me a closer comparison, since most people would not think your speech stilted if you say /there are things/ instead of /there's things./ -- SuStel http://trimboli.name
I use “whom” and if anyone thinks my speech is stilted, jISaHbe’. -charghwI’, retired
On Aug 24, 2021, at 9:44 PM, SuStel <sustel@trimboli.name> wrote:
On 8/24/2021 9:18 PM, Will Martin wrote:
I thought I remembered initial examples of lutu’lu’ and later examples of tu’lu’ later where lutu’lu’ would have been called for, and when that was pointed out, it just became tu’lu’ by convention, but it’s a very old memory, and I’m not one of the wizards of canon. I don't think lutu'lu' had been used in a canonical sentence, but Okrand has addressed it.
First, after qep'a' loSDIch, ghunchu'wI' reported that "Robyn Stewart's idea of lutu'lu' as the Klingon version of whom got a nod and an explicit lack of contradiction [from Okrand]. naDev tlhInganpu' lutu'lu' is grammatical, but the lu- is more often left off." (Voragh sent this to the list 12 July 1998.)
In 2014, Okrand gave us most of the rest of the information we needed. See the message here: http://klingon.wiki/En/ThereIs . Instead of who/whom, he compares tu'lu' without lu- to there's referring to plural things that are there. This seems to me a closer comparison, since most people would not think your speech stilted if you say there are things instead of there's things.
-- SuStel http://trimboli.name _______________________________________________ tlhIngan-Hol mailing list tlhIngan-Hol@lists.kli.org http://lists.kli.org/listinfo.cgi/tlhingan-hol-kli.org
participants (3)
-
luis.chaparro＠web.de -
SuStel -
Will Martin