tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Sat Nov 08 21:21:24 1997
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
Re: Sentence as Object
- From: [email protected]
- Subject: Re: Sentence as Object
- Date: Sun, 9 Nov 1997 00:21:13 -0500 (EST)
In a message dated 97-11-07 08:57:42 EST, you write:
<< Well, if you could provide a translation of a question as an
object IN ITS ENTIRETY without removing the question mark,
dropping the "that" and fudging the words around until it looks,
in English, like a relative clause, then perhaps I could begin
to take your argument a little bit seriously. Meanwhile, you
have not managed to do this even once. You just dodge the issue.
You ignore it. >>
peHruS here:
Okay, you have started to understand the difference in our points. You think
I am trying to substitute relative clause translations for SAO/QAO
translations. Wrong!!!
I am trying to point out clearly for you all what TKD 6.2.5 really says. You
have been refusing to believe it. You merely ramble on about a different
topic altogether: relative clauses. I have always said they work just fine
with the TKD section regarding realtive clauses, TKD 6.2.3.
You understand now? There are two completely distinct sections in Klingon
grammar. But, do you see that you, not I, have been trying to confuse
them??? Equate them?
peHruS