tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Wed Dec 18 13:15:49 1996
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
Re: RE: KLBC. First attempt
- From: "HurghwI'" <[email protected]>
- Subject: Re: RE: KLBC. First attempt
- Date: Wed, 18 Dec 1996 15:18:51 -0600
At 09:35 PM 12/17/96 -0800, you wrote:
>HurghwI'vo': > chaq jIH yajlaw' law' jIH yaj.
>charghwI'vo': > Even weirder gibberish.
>
>ja' HurghwI':
>>AHEM . . I realize this might not be the best way to say this; this is just
>>a linguistic exercise.
>
>bIqeqpa' Qel chaw' yISuq! :-)
>
>The law'/puS comparitive construction works only with verbs
>"expressing a quality or condition". Trying to shoehorn an
>active verb like {yaj} into it results in absolute garbage.
>Not to mention the necessary {puS} you've been leaving out.
I understand, SuStel explained.
>There, that makes complaints from at least three people about
>your "exercise" -- you should stop it immediately before you
>do some real damage. :-) Practicing something *wrong* is at
>least as bad as, if not worse than, not practicing at all.
I said it once. And now I know it's wrong, so I wasn't planning on saying it
again.
>If you don't like charghwI''s recasting the law'/puS away,
>how about this?
>{pab vIyajlaw'bogh law' law' pab vIyajbejbogh law' puS}
>"I seemed to understand more grammar than I certainly understood."
I couldn't find {law'}, besides "many," in the dictionary.
Where is it?
-HurghwI'
Hovjaj 96965.0