tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Fri Mar 14 16:03:17 1997
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
RE: KLBC: De'wI' mu'mey
- From: "David Trimboli" <[email protected]>
- Subject: RE: KLBC: De'wI' mu'mey
- Date: Fri, 14 Mar 97 23:54:12 UT
On Friday, March 14, 1997 1:09 PM, [email protected] on behalf of Mark E.
Shoulson wrote:
> FWIW, I am not dead against "qaQochbe'" for "I agree with you." There's a
> continuum of opinions, I think, with SuStel near one end (the more
> conservative and rigid side wrt assignments of objects of verbs) and peHruS
> near the other (more permissive). I find myself definitely not in
> agreement with peHruS on many matters, but also not with SuStel, though I
> suspect I'm a bit closer to him.
>
> Trouble is, transitivity is one of the least-clarified issues in tlhIngan
> Hol.
If it *were* clearer, I'd be much, much less rigid! My conservatism is not so
much because I think things like {qaQoch} and {qajatlh} are bad, but because I
prefer to err on the side of caution (and of course there's the occasional
construction which is just icky).
And I don't seem to have more trouble than anyone else in communicating . . .
*shrug*
--
SuStel
Beginners' Grammarian
Stardate 97201.9