Re: Klingon (was Re: Fictional auxlangs as artlangs (was Re: Poll))
| From: | Philip Newton <philip.newton@...> |
|---|
| Date: | Thursday, December 18, 2008, 12:10 |
|---|
On Wed, Dec 17, 2008 at 23:59, deini nxtxr <deinx.nxtxr@...> wrote:
> Yes, but is any of it really unpronounceable by humans?
If it had been, it wouldn't have been very suitable for the actors in
the films....
On Thu, Dec 18, 2008 at 00:04, deini nxtxr <deinx.nxtxr@...> wrote:
>> [mailto:CONLANG@listserv.brown.edu] On Behalf Of Mark J. Reed
>> The odd thing there is that it's an agglutinating language,
>> but has subject/object combined into unanalyzable prefixes.
>> That kind of one-affix-tells-you-many-things feature is
>> usually associated with inflecting languages.
>
> At some point years ago I read through the Kligon grammar pretty thoroougly,
> and this was the only part of the language I really found difficult,
Though as Mark J. Reed noted, if you use it, you'll find that a dozen
or so are used pretty frequently so you learn those after a while
(IME). And it wouldn't surprise me if there were quite a few speakers
who don't know some of the lesser-used ones (e.g. you -> us), simply
because they're not used that much, but who still have a firm grasp of
the more-frequently-used ones.
Cheers,
Philip
Replies