tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Wed Sep 30 20:15:12 1998
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
Relative Pronouns (Was Re: Ke'Plak)
- From: "Qor'etlh" <[email protected]>
- Subject: Relative Pronouns (Was Re: Ke'Plak)
- Date: Wed, 30 Sep 1998 20:16:38 -0700 (PDT)
gItlh DloraH:
Memorial Day weekend, Praxis Con, Hiddenvalley PA
jatlhna' MO:
"Questions can not be used as objects in a SAO construction.
It is NOT known yet if the words can be used as relative pronouns, or
if there are relative pronouns.
For now just play it safe and recast, breaking these constructions
into multiple sentences."
DITTO here.
Of all of the things said by Marc over the long weekend, this stands
out most clearly (second only to "SIS").
His inferrence seemed to me to be that this would allow for clearer
translations.
For now.... <g>
It's already hard enough to learn the language without a large
variety of possible constructions. [*phew*]
IE: The TWO DIFFERENT grammatical constructions for Relative Clauses,
that charghwI' aluded to.
It also left a large backdoor for "refits" to the language when there
are enough fluent speakers to handle the extra variables. If he'd
been at qep'a' vaghDich he might have thought differently.OR; He is
compiling a list, even now...
This is a man with an evil streak a mile wide.
Or is it Maltz? hee hee...
Qapla'!
Qor'etlh valwI'na'
PS: Redundant Klingon Biology? charghwI' [pab] 'utlh! qar'a?
==
Occasionally, I may be wrong, but I'm always Qor'etlh.
{nuq, vISaH?} "What, me worry?"
Qapla'!
_________________________________________________________
DO YOU YAHOO!?
Get your free @yahoo.com address at http://mail.yahoo.com