tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Thu Apr 23 16:03:55 1998

Back to archive top level

To this year's listing

• Index by Date
• Index by Thread
• Index by Author

RE: rInchoHlaw' jInmol'a'

• From: Terrence Donnelly <[email protected]>
• Subject: RE: rInchoHlaw' jInmol'a'
• Date: Thu, 23 Apr 1998 18:02:39 -0500

At 04:02 AM 4/23/98 -0700, Holtej wrote:
>
>> >> 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.
>

Yes, it was me.  I dropped the subject since it seemed irresolvable, but
I still think it feels very natural.  In fact, I didn't even notice it
when I read this posting the first time, just processed it along with the
rest of the post.

-- ter'eS

http://www.geocities.com/Area51/Corridor/2711

• Prev by Date: Re: veS
• Next by Date: KLBC: *Duqtatlh* 'oH pongwIj'e'
• Prev by thread: RE: rInchoHlaw' jInmol'a'
• Next by thread: Re: Greetings [KBTP: Seqram, read this one]
• Index(es):
  • Date
  • Thread
  • Author

Back to archive top level