tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Wed Oct 30 08:20:07 1996

Back to archive top level

To this year's listing

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]

Re: The FAQ section 3.5 -- ~mark

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----

>Date: Tue, 29 Oct 1996 11:59:37 -0800
>From: Qorbeq <[email protected]>

>~mark, seeing as you are (probably?) the grammarian of grammarians can I
>just ask, finally, what the overall outcome of all that was ?? Most people
>seem to be agreeing but I *think* I've seen a couple of posts that "agree
>differently", IYSWIM.

"overall outcome"?  You mean we have to *decide* things?  Eww. :)  I rather
like the give and take.  I expect this will make a *fine* Round-Table
discussion in an upcoming HolQeD (you listening, Lawrence and whoever does
RT's these days?); maybe when Okrand sees the discussion in the HolQeD he
may have an answer.  Or perhaps before.  I know I plan to make sure he
knows about the debate as soon as possible (if he doesn't already), but I
think this one has so much said about it that it would be best if I didn't
try to give him any details short of showing him the posts and arguments.
I don't think I could do them justice.

I may be Grammarian, but I'm not the authority he is, and I'm not sure I
have the right to come down and say yes or no.

>How's about a little list of "acceptable" and "unacceptable", perhaps for
>inclusion in the FAQ ?

Hmm.  Not sure what can be said.  I think it's clear that "<<nuqneH>>
qaja'" is acceptable... but not much else. :)  I've gotten so used to
"<<nuqneH>> vIja'" that I'm going to have trouble breaking that habit (if
indeed it needs to be broken, as seems likely).

~mark

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: 2.6.2
Comment: Processed by Mailcrypt 3.4, an Emacs/PGP interface

iQB1AwUBMneAKcppGeTJXWZ9AQEzIQL+Pq/7P5h2W047fD4YZHIcwKz3wMuiLAcC
uQYljm5Unm4mVThRav6afwqT6vt8A1XKp5HVang1xda8Mq73usBrzaoJ6hd1E6eL
U5ExVWJDs2q14iHms9xZQWINYPQTeZSB
=pvC9
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

Back to archive top level