tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Thu Apr 23 03:51:51 1998
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
RE: rInchoHlaw' jInmol'a'
> jabbI'IDghomvamvaD bIlabqa'mo' jIbel, Holtej. nI'taHvIS poH bIlabbe'.
jIchegh 'e' tu' vay'! *sniff* :) HIja', qaStaHvIS poH nI' jIDach.
jIHaDlI'; tugh ghItlh'a'wIj vIghItlh rIntaH.
> >> DaH loQ maleSlaH ghunwI'pu'. tugh leSlaH je tobwI'pu' net tul.
>
> >Daj mu'tlhegh wa'DIch. Hatbe'law' 'ej QIjchu'. majQa'!
>
> There was a bit of a controversy over this sort of usage a while back.
> Somebody (it might have been ter'eS; I don't remember) got yelled at for
> it. General opinion regarded it as dubious, but I think it just works
> here.
I'm not surprised that this didn't escape notice. But I agree that is seems
to work just fine, even if it perhaps doesn't follow a strict interpretation
of the grammar.
> pagh
--Holtej