tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Fri Dec 20 22:17:15 1996
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
Re: Grammar violation (was RE: ENOUGH IS ENOUGH!)
- From: "d'Armond Speers" <[email protected]>
- Subject: Re: Grammar violation (was RE: ENOUGH IS ENOUGH!)
- Date: Sat, 21 Dec 1996 01:24:16 -0500
- Encoding: 24 TEXT
On Saturday, December 21, 1996 12:45 AM, James
Johnson[SMTP:[email protected]] wrote:
> >va. qatlh mejlaHbe'taHvIS nuQwI'pu' mej charghwI'? QapHa'law' pat.
> >po'wI'pu' wIpolnIStaH 'ej vIngwI'pu' maw wIqIlnIS. yItI', *Jay*.
> >
> >--Qov.
> >
> >Noticing a little grammar violation-suffix violation here. nuQwI'pu'
> po'wI'pu' and vIngwI'pu' violate that rule on suffixes. Just so you know.
No, no violation here. These are all verb roots, plus the type 9 verb
suffix /-wI'/ (which makes them into nouns), and the type 2 noun suffix
/-pu'/, the plural marker for beings capable of language.
Now, interesting to note that the beta of /pojwI' for Windows/ reports
these as suffix violations. (It *is* beta, after all). If you're using
this program, my recommendation is to take the translations with a grain of
salt, not as gospel. Trust, but verify!
> tu'wI'
--Holtej
Stardate 96972.67