tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Wed Feb 15 10:54:37 1995
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
Re: repeated apology
- From: "William H. Martin" <[email protected]>
- Subject: Re: repeated apology
- Date: Wed, 15 Feb 95 13:54:32 EST
- In-Reply-To: <[email protected]>; from "Mark J. Reed" at Feb 14, 95 4:59 pm
According to Mark J. Reed:
>
> I obviously missed another canonical reference. This is why my post was
> formed as a question: "Is it considered legal?" I was simply surprised.
> If I had been speaking authoritatively, I would have expected the sarcastic
> tone of charghwI's reply . . .
Again, I apologise. While I have generally been coping well
with recent challenging family situations, this single instance
was a complete failure to do so. Again, I apologize. The tone
of my response had nothing to do with your posting and
everything to do with my failure to isolate my emotional
reaction to a personal tragedy from my role as Beginners'
Grammarian.
> -marqoS
Your comments about {vaj} are quite interesting. Yes, I have
been using it as a conjunction, as has Okrand. I see it used
more often as a conjunction than as an adverbial, though I do
see it used as an adverbial. Considering the quantity of canon
using it as a conjunction, we probably should see if Okrand
wants to officially recognize {vaj} as both a conjunction and
an adverbial.
charghwI'
--
\___
o_/ \
<\__,\
"> | Get a grip.
` |