tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Thu Feb 16 04:36:34 1995
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
Re: repeated apology
- From: "Mark J. Reed" <[email protected]>
- Subject: Re: repeated apology
- Date: Thu, 16 Feb 95 07:39:04 EST
- In-Reply-To: Your message of Wed, 15 Feb 1995 14:29:25 -0500. <[email protected]>
"William H. Martin" <[email protected]> writes:
\ 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.
Such isolation is difficult to manage in the best of circumstances. I am,
of course, totally ignorant of your personal problems, or I would probably not
have said anything about your tone in the first place.
Apology more than accepted. Thank you for the amazing amount of time and
effort you have devoted to the list during your stint as BG.
qatlho'neS. DaDachtaHvIS mabech Hoch.
\ 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.
I'm not sure "conjunction" fits, either. I was in error when I said that
{..chugh vaj..} is a two-sentence construction. The -chugh makes the first
sentence into a dependent clause (speaking from an English point of view,
again). In particular, the way I look at it, the entire sentence becomes
an adverbial. Looked at that way, you have a sentence with two adverbials -
a perfectly legal construction. One of the adverbials just happens to be a
clause instead of a simple word. It just seems redundant. But then,
the English "if . . . then" could also be considered redundant for similar
reasons. So, in the face of overwhelming canonical evidence against me,
I withdraw my reservations about the construct.
-marqoS
--
Mark J. Reed
Email: [email protected] - Voice: +1 404 315 6296 x158 - Fax: +1 404 315 0293
SecureWare, Inc. / 2957 Clairmont Rd Suite 200 / Atlanta GA 30329-1647