tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Fri Jun 23 09:28:00 1995
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
Re: maDochlaHtaH
- From: "William H. Martin" <[email protected]>
- Subject: Re: maDochlaHtaH
- Date: Fri, 23 Jun 95 12:27:57 EDT
- In-Reply-To: <[email protected]>; from "William H. Martin" at Jun 23, 95 10:49 am
According to William H. Martin:
I think I spoke too quickly and failed to handle this well.
> According to R.B Franklin:
> >
> >
> > Mon, 19 Jun 1995 ghItlh DaQtIq:
> >
> > > chaq tugh tlhIngan Hol ghoj HatchoH
> >
> > ghaytan <ghoj>Daq {-meH} DachelnIS. I.e. chaq tugh tlhIngan Hol ghojmeH
> > HatchoH.
>
> chaq yapbe' mu'tlheghlIj choHHom. <<chaq tugh thlIngan Hol
> ghojmeH HatchoH Qu'.>> Otherwise, it looks like a "sentence as
> subject" construction, which we can't have.
Okay. So it DOESN'T look like a "sentence as subject"
construction. Meanwhile, it does use an implied "it" in much
the same way as most mistaken attempts at "sentence as subject"
constructions. I just personally prefer to state what it is
that becomes illegal. The mission or task of learning Klingon
language is what is possibly becoming illegal. Leaving it at an
implied "it" just feels a little too vague for me.
Again, this is not so much a matter of grammar as style, and so
it falls in the realm of opinion and not authoritative fact.
> > > Qapla'
> > > - DaQtIq
> >
> > yoDtargh
>
> charghwI'
charghwI'
--
\___
o_/ \
<\__,\
"> | Get a grip.
` |