tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Tue Dec 16 00:49:52 1997
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
Re: KLBC Challenge: similar suffixes
- From: Qov <[email protected]>
- Subject: Re: KLBC Challenge: similar suffixes
- Date: Tue, 16 Dec 1997 00:49:36 -0800
At 21:16 97-12-15 -0800, SuStel wrote:
}>bIpujmo' QaghlIjmo' bIbIQ
}>(Because you are weak, you are sad because of your mistake.)
}>[That last one was tough. I hope I came close.]
}
}This is the second double {-mo'} sentence I've seen in response to Qov's
}challenge so far, and I must say it looks icky to me. I can see why Scott
}had trouble with it. It doesn't break any known rules, but it doesn't seem
}to want to do that. You're giving two causes in two different formats: verb
}and noun. These are two causes of the same event, yet you cannot join them
}with any sort of conjunction.
I quite liked it. I see the acceptable sentence {QaghlIjmo' bI'IQ} with the
acceptable clause {bIpujmo'} explaining the reason for the second sentence.
bIpujbe'chugh QaghlIjmo' bI'IQbe'. HoSwI' nuQbe' QaghDaj. If both the noun
and the verb were indicated as caues of the same effect it would certainly
be icky, as occured with the one who tried to fit all ten suffixes into one
sentence. :)
BTW: I'll be away December 20-30th. I'd appreciate it if any BG(s) who will
be in range of their computers over the holiday could keep up with the mail.
Qov [email protected]
Beginners' Grammarian