tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Fri Jun 14 17:26:42 1996
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
Re: KLBC: borg'ngan
- From: [email protected]
- Subject: Re: KLBC: borg'ngan
- Date: Sat, 15 Jun 1996 02:17:23 +0200
At 07:06 AM 14/6/96 -0700, you wrote:
>beHwI"av wrote:
>>You mean it's a pleonasm.
>
>Having just looked up the definition of "pleonasm", I can say firmly:
>"No, it isn't." If I understand the word correctly, a pleonasm would
>be something redundant like {juHDaq ghoS} "he is approaching to home"
>(known to be acceptable grammar), or *{jej yaS tajDaj} "the officer's
>his knife is sharp" (which I'm not sure should be accepted).
I'm sorry about forcing you to loo up the word, my Dad, yes that same one,
uses it on a daily basis, because *even* the BBC uses them, not the word, to
often.
>I need to say two things here. First, I apologize for trivializing
>beHwI"av's sentence; it is correct, in both grammar and meaning. My
>preference for more "active" sentences shouldn't have any bearing on
>how I judge others' writing. Second, I goofed on the verb prefix in
>my suggested rewrite: it should be {SoH qawIvta'}. (I can imagine a
>context in which the mismatched prefix might actually be appropriate,
>but this isn't it.)
Aah, I didn't even see that (guess I won't be getting that BG job soon), but
I understood your meaning even if others did not.
Qapla'
beHwI"av