[[
  [2009-04-04] added document
  [2013-11-29] added document header

  Type: email
  Date: 28 May 1998
  Title: long weekend with MO
  Author: Roger Cheesbro
  Summary: On questions-as-objects (QAO), when to use {-wIj} and when to use
    {-wI'}, on what kind of subject to use with {SIS} ~rain~, and the fact that
    you can't use {jIbuy'} to say "I'm full".

]]

From: TPO <cheesbro@mail.rpa.net> = DloraH
Reply-To: tlhingan-hol@kli.org
Date: Thu, 28 May 1998 
Subject: long weekend with MO

Well, I just spent last weekend hang'n with Marc Okrand.  I got answers
for some of our questions and a "I'll have to think about that one" for
some other questions.  Hopefully I won't misquote Marc.  Lawrence was with
us during some of our conversations. 

The first one I nailed him with was our lovely QAO.  Uh-oh.  You can not
use a "question" as an object; but... it is not known yet if Klingon
question words can act as one of those relative things, uh, relative
pronoun is it?  You guys know what I'm refering to.  So basicly we didn't [[refering:=referring]][[basicly:=basically]]
really get anywhere with this one yet.  The safest thing for now would be
to recast if possible. 

Next, -wIj, -wI', and other related suffixes.  "Beings which are capable
of language".  They must be a "being", which rules out things like
computers.  And yes, it must be able to use language.  This was not simply
another way of stating sentience.  Now, to clearify "use of language" a [[clearify:=clarify]]
little bit...  A child which has not yet developed language would still
get [-wI'].  This kind of goes along with how Klingon doesn't have tense. 
99.9% chance that this child will later use language.  Someone earlier
brought up the hypothetical situation: if someone is in a coma, they can
not speak.  Well, they were able to, and perhaps will someday again.  They
still get [-wI'].  When someone dies, if you are talking about the
"person" they get [-wI'];  and of course if you are refering to the empty [[refering:=referring]]
shell that is left, it gets a [-wIj]. 

SIS.  In a way everyone was correct with this one.  It rained a few times
during the weekend, so we were put into the situation to discuss it.
	SIS
	SISqu'
	SIStaH
	SISchoH
All correct.  SISlu', altho grammaticlly correct, he didn't particularly [[grammaticlly:=grammatically]]
like.  Someone COULD use it but to me it sounds like they skipped science
class and don't know what the subject is.  You can also give it an object
and say things like the clouds rained down cats and dogs. ...or something
like that; you get the idea.  But when Marc and I went outside and drops
of water were falling on us, he looked up and simply said "SIS". 

I also showed Marc my notes about the old Klingon number system he
mentioned in TKD.  He comfirmed my findings.  I can add, subtract, [[comfirmed:=confirmed]]
multiply and divide in the ancient way.  He said he will think about the
terminology and grammer to use in mathematical operations. [[grammar:=grammar]]

And a little side note... [buy' ngop].  "The plates are full."  KGT.  No
problem.  Now, after a big meal, and your belly is big, you can't eat
another bite.  You can't say [jIbuy'].  Your stomach can be full, but YOU
can't; not in this context anyways.

Hopefully I was clear about everything.  There may have been a couple
other tidbits.  If I recall any more, I'll be certain to send them here. 

[[eof]]